Hello, dear readers of my blog!
Today I want to talk about logic and emotions. I think we all know that when making decisions, we often find ourselves at a crossroads - we want one thing in our hearts, but our mind says that we need to do something differently. It can be very difficult to make a choice in such a situation. Let's try to figure out who to listen to - logic or emotions?
Let's start with logic
Its advantages are obvious - logic always tells us what is the best thing to do in a given situation. Of course, provided that our knowledge of the laws of the world is good enough that our picture of the world is accurate. I will write in more detail about what a picture of the world is in separate articles, but for now I will say in a nutshell - this is how we imagine the world, its patterns, how everything happens, how we understand cause-and-effect relationships.
If our picture of the world is quite high-quality and close to reality, then logic will tell us the most accurate solutions.
This is about the "good" side of logic. But not everything is so rosy. Logic also has its own fly in the ointment... Namely, if you constantly follow only logical solutions, then emotional burnout cannot be avoided. Simply put, people are not machines, we need emotions and rest. If you always do only what logic says and ignore the call of emotions, then energy will be wasted, fatigue will accumulate... If you continue to ignore emotions, then sooner or later they will take their toll, and we will fall into depression when it is no longer possible to do anything.
Let's summarize:
- The poles of logic are always the best solutions, provided developed intelligence and pictures of the world.
- Minuses - emotional burnout, leading to depression and health problems.
Now let's look at emotions
According to the law of binary world, in contrast to logic, it is as if emotions were specially created. They work exactly the opposite.
The advantages of emotions are that when we follow them, we get a charge of energy, are filled with strength, and have fun. Unfortunately, as I said in , if we follow exclusively the call of emotions and instincts, then we will always be lazy and ultimately degrade. It’s like in the fable about the dragonfly, which had fun all summer, “filled with energy,” and in winter the cold came, and it became clear that we should prepare for .
That is:
- The advantage of the “call of the heart” is that by following it, we are filled with energy and relax.
- But, unfortunately, things are often not what they need for development and we gradually degrade...
Who should you listen to?
I think that it is impossible to give a definite answer in this case. It's constantly balancing on a razor's edge. We first need to decide what we want in life, and depending on this, build our behavior strategy - who will we listen to more, emotions or logic.
If the goal of life is to have fun and enjoy it to the maximum, then more preference can be given to emotional decisions. Conditionally dividing decision making by 100%, in this case the importance of emotions will be, say, 70%, and the importance of logic 30%. This is a completely acceptable behavior strategy; many people live this way and enjoy life. But I don’t want it that way, because in the long run this behavior leads to degradation and lack of achievement in life. In my understanding of development, I do not impose my point of view on anyone.
Everyone chooses for themselves how best to live.
I prefer a strategy when I make 70% of decisions with logic and 30% with emotions. This allows you to show high efficiency and maintain balance and not fall into depression. That is, relatively speaking, we work 5 days a week and rest 2 days. But you really have to work to the fullest. As well as rest, also to the fullest.
Write in the comments what ratio of emotions and logic do you use when making decisions?
P.S.
If you want to learn more about how to motivate yourself and how emotions influence our behavior, where laziness comes from, then download my free book - “
Emotion is an affective reaction directed towards a specific object, which a short time leads to changes in behavior. Darwin also identified six basic emotions inherent in animals (humans are included in the category): fear, anger, joy, sadness, disgust, surprise. Ekman later defined these emotions as universal, that is, used by a person regardless of culture, social class and religion. The remaining emotions are called social according to McLean (1990) and are inherent only in the brain with a neocortex.
Logic - "LOGIC (Greek logike) is the science of methods of proof and refutation; a set of scientific theories, each of which considers certain methods of proof and refutation. Aristotle is considered the founder of logic." (see Big encyclopedic Dictionary). Logical thinking is the ability to draw a conclusion from two or more truthful circumstances, while intuition should be ignored. For example, according to the laws of logic, “All people are insects” + “All trees are people” = “All trees are insects” is a completely viable phrase. Let's not discuss my example, it was made for clarity.
Logic is inherent only to people. Why? As I have already tried to explain, logic requires more than just thinking or the ability to learn. You need abstract thinking and the ability to draw up rules from which you can then draw conclusions. This is only possible when building verbal associations. And also in the presence of long-term memory. And this requires a certain complexity in the structure of the brain, which is inaccessible to most animals, but is accessible to humans. People are able to make a decision by working through everything possible options in the mind, we don’t just perceive information, we process it semantically (which is inaccessible to animals), draw conclusions and are able to apply the acquired knowledge in new situations, while animals are guided by instincts and try everything in practice. Moreover, the fact that they have learned a certain chain of actions (button press = feed) does not speak about logic, but about the ability to learn (operant learning / conditioning in all its glory).
Bottom line: animals are guided by instincts, many of them are capable of perceiving and experiencing emotions, but logic is accessible only to people.
Please ask questions if you think I missed something or explained it poorly :)
I really liked your answer too.
And yet, logic or emotions, what do you think?
ps
I put a slightly different meaning into “logic”, different from solving problems or drawing conclusions. Emotions must obey some rules. If not for this, the reaction at any given time would be strictly chaotic. Thus, I conclude that the formation of a reaction, that is, emotions and etc. obeys a certain algorithm, that is, logic.
For example, the stimulus is “a plane crashed in the Czech Republic” > reaction (below)
1.tired of falling - *neutral reaction
2. death again - *despondency, because a close relative died in a similar way
3.kaboom! muhahaha - *well, everything is clear here
I described this process briefly, only with conclusions, in my head it seems to me more sophisticated and complex.
Aaaand, my answer to my own question is - logic is primary.
Answer
Blank, speaking about the primacy of this or that event, it is worth considering the evolution and origin of life on Earth. Life began with the simplest organisms, which were guided by nothing more than instincts; I have already given the name of the scientist. Basic emotions are not subject to logic; moreover, the reaction occurs so quickly that the brain does not have time to comprehend the information. For example, you live in Australia and heard about the number of snakes there, saw something long in the grass and instantly felt fear. In a fraction of milliseconds, your brain decided that there was a snake in front of you and began to prepare your body for escape, that is, it turned on such biological processes as the release of adrenaline, dilation of the pupils, increase in lung capacity, and so on. And only then do you realize that there is a hose in front of you. You can read more about this from LeDoux. I think if you just google it, they will give you a summary of the theory.
The next most complex emotions are a mixture of basic emotions. For example, friendliness, nervousness, disappointment. Your example is focused primarily on these emotions: despondency, empathy (and ignorance). I named the basic emotions in the answer :)
We are able to suppress our emotions. If you read a couple of my previous comments under other posts, you will notice that I include social influence throughout. It also affects the regulation of emotions, but does not have the same effect. big influence like a brain on them. You are right, it is in it that the processes responsible for emotions occur, and there are many theories that explain their appearance and regulation. For example, my favorite:
Quartet theory, Kölscher et al., 2015
This theory presents two systems: affective and effective systems. The affective system represents parts of the brain responsible for certain emotions (sorry, but I will write the names in English): Diencephalon-centred is responsible for pain and pleasure, Brainstem-centred for arousal (excitement) and fatigue, Hippocampus-centred for communication and love, and orbitofrontal-centred: satisfaction, unconscious evaluation, possibly morality (the authors themselves are not sure here)
The effective system is, in fact, the body: motor system, memory, hormones, attention
When processing emotion, both systems synchronize with each other and produce an emotional response, which is then transformed into language.
As I already wrote in my answer, my opinion (and the opinion of the majority of scientists whose theories I will take tomorrow) is that emotions are primary. Unlike logic, they are determined by the most important goal in the life of our genes: survival. Logic appeared later, when civilization began, but that's another story.
Answer
38 more comments
Mikhail, could you tell me what the experiments with animals looked like, where the presence of logic was indicated? Because I didn’t go further than dogs, cats, mice and monkeys, and only conditioning was carried out on all of them. Although, if I understood you correctly and you consider the conclusion “I pressed the lever and now they will feed me” to be logical, then yes, you are right :)
Answer
Ekaterina, I don’t quite understand how what you wrote to me differs from what I described to you above. Perhaps I’m a softie :) and I can’t convey the fullness of my thoughts. I understand fear in this way: a snake, dangerous! (why? - because it will kill), you need to survive (why? - pass on genes through time), you need adrenaline (for reaction and speed, etc.), you need to run, etc. From the outside it looks very much like a logical chain. Moreover, you yourself say that the reaction is so fast that “logic” is hardly included. How do we know what won't turn on? Many processes in the head take place in the background. Yes, I heard that during an emergency the brain suppresses part of consciousness in order to redistribute resources to “survival”. Okay, since there is no “logic”, then somewhere there must be a ready-made script “do you see a snake? Run!” And if so, it means it can be edited, which means fear can be controlled. Why do I think this? Because I myself have arachnophobia. IN Lately I'm trying to get rid of this fear. And every time I see a spider, the reaction gets weaker and weaker.
Yes, I can also agree that we do not understand each other, because I am a person without education (11th grade + 1.5 years of university, then expelled). And you are studying to become a psychologist and use a “bicycle” in the form of “psychology”, which has already been invented for you and put on it. And thank you for the theory “Quartet theory, Kölscher et al., 2015”, I already like it, I’ll read it one of these days.
Answer
As for this chain, it happens regardless of your thoughts. And it happens without your thinking. Example - a large stone is flying at you, you won’t think about where to jump. You will simply jump where your instinct takes you (which began to be fulfilled due to a crazy dose of adrenaline), because if you start thinking about where to jump and how to jump, you will slightly die from this stone. This instinct is not exactly written in a script that is executed by the CPU ( gray bark), rather, it is a separate microprocessor with a small amount of code that executes it without thinking about the execution results or reasons. And you, theoretically, can change the code for this (as you did with the fear of spiders). But different areas of the brain are responsible for editing, code editing and execution - the “logical” (gray cortex) for editing and the “emotional” (I don’t know exactly, mb, the cerebellum in our example) for execution. Yes, humans and animals from the previous comment, theoretically, can drown out hormonal signals, but with difficulty and only higher ones. A cat, for example, will not be able to use logic (how, what and why) to draw a parallel between “peeed in shoes” and “blow”; it will be a developed instinct for which emotions are responsible. If you divide emotions into logical conclusions, then, yes, it will work out, but emotions (read, instincts) were formed not under the yoke of logic, but under the yoke of natural selection. Let me give you another example - a child, when he is hungry, screams because his emotions require it, and not because he can no longer endure the pain in his stomach; an adult who has gained logic, but a person will not allow himself to do this, since he has already gained logic.
Answer
Mikhail, your comments are good, but something very persistently prevents me from agreeing with you. Apparently this is because I separate consciousness, subconsciousness, various mechanisms of logic, reaction mechanisms (emotions, decisions, etc.) and “fundamental logic”. Which, for example, tells me that water evaporates almost instantly at 100 degrees for a reason; there is probably something in the structure of the molecule on which this temperature depends. In general, not everything is so simple. But I don’t welcome studying the psychological component of a person directly through his physical component (the brain). These are slightly different things, although I still don’t deny the overlap. The main thing is that false hypotheses should not be built on these “intersections”. But I don’t want to say that I’m the smartest, I can be convinced if you provide consistent evidence. In the meantime, my worldview does a good job of generating ideas.
Answer
Well, measuring through the brain is currently the only possibility, since our entire internal state comes from there, our thoughts, emotions, sensations, consciousness. Of course, you can simply ask a person “What do you feel?”, but this will be a subjective answer, which may be false, and science needs accurate results. But physical indicators won’t lie; we (yet) cannot control the heartbeat or the transmission of signals via neutrons. Although I can imagine that some Buddhist monks have achieved some success in this field. This is so far the only objective method of studying the psyche. Even observation is not accurate. So far, we have only found which departments are responsible for which emotions, and the methods have not yet been perfected, but science does not stand still :) the most important question: how is intangible information (the same emotions and thoughts) transformed into an electrical discharge passing through the brain? The answer to this is being persistently sought. You should definitely read textbooks on psychology, good luck in finding answers to your questions :)
Answer
The indicators are not physical (because this rather relates to form), but physiological (hormone levels, pulse, basal levels of neurotransmitters, blood sugar levels, etc.), and the transmission of impulses in the nervous system is transmitted through neurons (cells) nervous system), and not by neutrons (nuclear particles).
From books, if you look, you need to read popular science literature related to the brain, its work and the reactions that occur in it. Because emotions are, first of all, caused by a certain physiological state of the nervous system, which triggers other systems of the body.
Answer
You missed one rather important point. Emotions are nothing more than a mechanism for fixing experiences in long-term memory. Only those experiences that are associated with emotions of sufficient strength are remembered. Thus, if logic is based on the experience that is stored in memory, then logic and emotions work in conjunction.
Well, I don’t entirely agree that animals have no logical abilities at all. It's just that they only have access to very simple logic. But this is logic, not stupid memorization. I recently described the corresponding experiment with monkeys in response to the question
Answer
Neutrons is a typo, but thank you for writing everything out in such detail. Of course, logic and emotions work in direct conjunction, don’t forget motivation. I already wrote my definition of logic in the original answer, and animals are not capable of this. And in the comment above I agreed that if we take logic at a very elementary level, then yes, it is present in animals. And I wouldn’t call it stupid memorization. (I generally get the impression that everyone here is talking about the same thing, only in different words).
Answer
Unfortunately, I cannot recommend literature, because I mainly read articles, and get material from textbooks at lectures, and besides, everything is in German and English. Plus, if I know of any books, they are aimed at psychology students. But maybe one of the other commentators will advise something.
Answer
For myself, I define logic as the ability to obtain new knowledge from what is already known. By logical reasoning. (In contrast to simple memorization, when some knowledge comes ready-made.) Even if this is very simple reasoning. And even if the reasoner himself is not aware of the fact that in reality he is drawing conclusions from the premises (creating new knowledge). And I believe that the L2 learning abilities that the monkeys demonstrated in the experiment I described is already evidence that they are sensitive reasoners.
By the way, about literature. I learned about this experiment from Gregory Bateson's book "Ecology of Mind". I don't know if I can recommend it. It is very difficult to read. This is more specialized literature than literature for the general public. But overall it's very interesting. There are a lot of questions revealed there. For example, it explains what meaning is as such. Or why dreams are usually so crazy after the fact, but while you are watching them, everything seems to be fine, as if it should be so.
Answer
If I talk about logic in my understanding, then things will get hot here, because this knowledge is based on my personal observations for many hours. I don’t mind if suddenly this turns out to be quite valuable information and someone even uses it for their own purposes. But so far my model has only been recognized by acquaintances and friends who don’t understand anything at all. So let's get started.
1.Logic. Let's imagine units of information, these could be sounds, memories, images, someone's words (quotes), etc. All this motley information is divided into “lists”. It doesn’t matter at all, but you can conditionally give them names: “1. something that I like” “2. I don’t like” “3. cool cars” “4. top ice cream” “5. bastards. They should burn in hell” “6. pleasant memories”, etc. Everything here is stupidly simple, the brain collects information into these lists, and then forms associations between the lists and between units of information. It looks like this: vanilla ice cream (4)(1) - Gelendzhik(6) - that's a Porsche! (3)(6) - fucking tourists littering the beach (5)(2) - etc...... ...
That is, if you start to remember something now, you may notice associations. Well, this is as old as time.
Further. Each piece of information has its own priority in the list. It depends on the priority what your brain downloads first from these very lists.
We have: information, lists with information, everything is connected.
2.Autologic. This is exactly what we need. It always works. Did you see a bright flash from a flashlight? So the autologic has already collected a new list (I call it “task”). There will be: 1) an accident in which you were injured, and it was at night and the car blinded you> 2) because of this you didn’t go to a swimming competition, it sucks
3) fireworks show, where you saw bright flashes of fireworks> 4) it was a holiday and we had a great time> 5) and after that we didn’t get enough sleep and wrote the Unified State Exam in a dead state>6) we went to the budget
7) solar flares (and why not?)
8)etc.
In general, she conducts a search and finds that “flash” in several lists, then selects the highest priority associations and shoves them into the “task”. It can contain 200-300-1000 pieces of information, depending on the lists themselves. I don’t know the exact number, and it’s not particularly important.
3. The "task" is sent to the "reaction block" (I couldn't think of a better name)
4. Here a reaction to the information received is formed. And of course, the block is responsible for: hormones, emotions, mood, decisions and blah blah.
Good information will receive a positive assessment and we will get pleasant emotions (we had a great time, cool fireworks, went to university on a budget, etc.).
Bad info - negative, and negative emotions(it sucked to be in the hospital for 2 weeks, and then it was so bad on the Unified State Exam.
Neutral - everything is clear here (sun flares, etc.)
5. Let's go back to the beginning. Did you see the flash of a lantern? We remembered everything above and experienced something pleasant; perhaps we neglected the unpleasant, because... I don’t care about the hospital and so on.
****
This is my model for forming decisions, emotions and other things. Everything is simple here, first logic-auto-logic, and then emotions. After all, we first hear some information from a person, and then we react to it.
It works for me because... Now I understand that it was my brain that made the decision for me “not to wash the dishes right now,” so I tell myself “this is bullshit” and wash the dishes, but I don’t feel sad or despondent. It's the same with emotions. I let myself understand which reaction was “not correct” and which was very objective. For example, I used to be very shy and my brain gave me the decision “don’t talk to anyone, stay at home, you’ll be fine alone.” But I feel bad...
One more distinctive feature What makes this model work is the fact that now my autologic doesn't offer me "priority crap". When you realize that most of what comes to mind is not your decision, but the decisions of the brain, you can say “this is crap (in a condensed form, without thinking)” and after a certain number of times “this crap” will stop pouring in at you. You will begin to react normally to people, phenomena, and so on and so forth, which previously infuriated you wildly or led to indignation. You will stop being afraid and embarrassed by people. Previously, I could sit and eat at the same “Mac or Burger King” and all the time the obsessive thought was “they are watching me eat, they are looking at my mouth, it infuriates me.” Now there is no such thing.
If you are interested, I can use this model to tell you how depression is formed.
Answer
I have a friend to whom I told this model in detail. She also works for her. Its essence is that you can teach yourself not to be distracted from necessary things. Something interesting came to mind, but is it banal entertainment? Drive him in the neck. Each time like this, more and more useful things will appear. Attention will not be scattered, etc.
Answer
Everything is almost correct. I mean, it works very differently, of course, but the line of thought is correct. There are no lists or associations in the brain. But there are things very similar to them - categories and contexts. A category is a kind of abstract generalization. For example, the category "table". This is not a list of all the tables you have ever seen, but some description of the table. For example: "a plane with four legs." When you see a brand new table that you've never seen before, you confidently identify it as a table. Moreover, even if this table has only three legs, you will still classify it as a table, albeit a little less confidently. You will think that it is a little strange, but it is still a table. And there are also contexts. They connect categories with each other. This is very similar to associations, but more complicated. An association links two elements together, and the context can contain an arbitrary number of categories. And all the brain does is compare the current operational situation with those contexts that were previously stored in memory. He simply can't do anything else. But he doesn't need to. Any thought process ultimately comes down to a series of such comparisons. But he can do this brilliantly. Everything in it seems to be created in order to do this job. What you call priority is the accuracy of the category matches. Those that match more accurately are given higher priority and are considered first when searching for a suitable context. If you practice something for a very long time, then over time you begin to do it automatically... as if without engaging your consciousness. This happens because, as a result of long practice, for any possible situation there is already a ready-made context in memory that is quickly found, and the brain already knows what to do in such a situation. There is no need to go into manual mode, which is consciousness. The transition to a slow and ineffective consciousness occurs only when some categories or context as a whole do not coincide perfectly, but with some stretches... for example, as in the example with a three-legged table.
Answer
Sergey, can I say that my method of working on decisions and emotions is publicly accessible and practical for people, and what you described is a more critical interpretation of it on " scientific language"? Because using your explanation, I would hardly have guessed how exactly this model could be used.
Answer
I wouldn't say that. I doubt your method works at all. At least if it works, I don't understand how. The main problem I see is that your method is surprisingly simple. The mechanism of its action is somewhat reminiscent of the work that professional psychotherapists do with patients (they identify the causes of emotions hidden from consciousness, and then make corrections). But they do this for many months or even years. And you described it as if it could be done quickly, independently and without special education. All three points are extremely doubtful. It is unlikely that this can be done quickly. It is hardly possible to do this without special education. And you certainly can’t do this on your own. Psychotherapists, even having all the necessary knowledge, still cannot treat themselves.
Answer
Sergei, but this is not impossible. I can control both the units of information themselves and emotions. Previously, I suffered from depression for quite a long time. At first I worked on my temper for about a month. Then I got rid of depression. The main point of my practice is the thesis that “if you understand the mechanism of any phenomenon, then it will become possible to influence it and use it for your own purposes.” For example, the method that I described above is a derivative of all my previous practices and was completely formed by me about a month ago. Before this, I had moments of despondency and apathy. Since I issued new method, such phenomena were no longer observed. But I am sure that this is for the time being. Because Initially, the method was built only on crutches, it was necessary to supplement it every day with certain directives, “put the train on the rails,” and then, if “it ran into an obstacle,” that is, negative emotions arose, make new changes. On average, I spent about 4-6 hours observing the processes of formation of emotions and decisions. Next, he determined the impact of emotions on decisions and vice versa. This went on for a month. Now I only occasionally check for myself whether my current actions are correct. The test is: “If you have a goal, but you don’t do anything to achieve it, then something is not working right.” The main points that I have highlighted so far are: 1) lack of awareness of the goal, 2) lack of awareness of the goal as a priority, 3) lack of agreement with it. Numbering in order of the thinking algorithm. My main idea now is to “optimize” all thought processes to achieve my own goals. In other words, don’t think about: crap, the past, what is unnecessary for now, other people’s opinions, hopes, fantasies, etc. Direct all your work towards creating a new future, and do it effectively.
Another statement of mine that I strive for: “if you understand the mechanism, you can use it with a snap of your fingers,” but so far it only works 1/3
If you want, I can tell you in detail, just write to me on VK
Answer
Sergey, I’ll also add that this happens faster because “the patient and the psychotherapist” are in the same head. Thinking over thinking. And, you must agree that if, for example, you yourself created a machine that creates machines, you will subsequently use it to create new ones. Because it's faster. The example, of course, is not entirely suitable, but it perfectly reflects the speed of further research when working with emotions and logic. Every time everything happens faster and faster.
Answer
I think you slightly overestimate your ability to manage emotions. That's putting it mildly. First of all, the idea itself confuses me. I don't think it's possible to manage emotions at all. Emotions can only be controlled by hiding their external manifestations through willpower. And even this is better not to abuse, since this is a direct path to various disorders. Secondly, you have the cart before the horse. Supposedly, first you realize a certain goal, then harness your emotions into it and then go with the wind. The motivation mechanism works exactly the opposite. Emotions give rise to motivation, which can be reflected by consciousness into a rational goal.
Do you know what the main problem with creating real artificial intelligence is? Just like they show in the movies. The main problem is that it is not known how to program emotions. You can program a computer so that it searches for information, analyzes it, and makes some generalizations and conclusions based on it. Roughly speaking, you can program logic. But there is no known way to program it so that it wants to do all this. He absolutely doesn’t care whether any information will be found and analyzed. All these problems do not concern him. He is completely calm about the fact that nothing will be done at all. He has no emotions. This means there is no guiding motivation. There is only logic. But without the primary emotional spark, it is dead weight.
Answer
Sergey, I think you don’t understand me. Why do I think so? Because I am against motivation, I deny it. Against willpower. She's nothing. Motivation and willpower suck. I gave them up and feel amazing. I don't need motivation to achieve my goal. And yet, I do not suppress emotions, but only control them.
Answer
I'm here again, sorry for the delay. I will speak in order and point by point for better systematization :)
1) for both of you, the definition of logic is rather a subjective point of view. Actually, this is why we cannot come to any compromise or a single decision. Out of curiosity, I googled the connection between logic and animals (on the university library website, it gives access to various scientific journals, books, and so on). So, there is no connection, zero results. Specifically between the words “logic” and “animals”. From which it follows that if animals have something, it is not logic in the sense in which you define it.
2) Experiment with a monkey. The so-called third level, chaining, is the construction of behavior, one of the methods of operant conditioning. No, he is not talking about the monkey's ability to think. He says that using the carrot and stick method (current and banana) you can get animals to complete one or another task, which at the same time consists of several stages.
3) Regarding “Emotions are nothing more than a mechanism for fixing experience in long-term memory.” There are currently 92 definitions of emotion. 92!! This does not mean that you are wrong, it means that emotions are quite a complex mechanism, covering more than one function.
4) The model is good, it collects many theories, so even without studying psychology at university you understood it :) the “reaction block” is the brain, don’t complicate it. Lists and associations: one of the theories of the structure of memory. Autologic = unconscious reaction, nothing more. What you called the reaction in point four is already conscious. The difference is in the path along which the impulses travel.
5) The brain does not simply compare the present with what is stored in memory, otherwise it would simply not be able to perceive new information in the form of the same three-legged table.
6) Blank, were you diagnosed with depression and arachnophobia or did you yourself conclude that you have the disease? Where did you come from, if you did? If you really have arachnophobia, then you shouldn’t think that you have overcome your fear. The disease is a deviation from the norm, it is clear that the fear should recede with time of therapy. But basic emotions in their normal state (what, according to DSM-V and ICD-10, does not bring you and others suffering) you cannot control, suppress, or do anything else with them.
7) Do not deny motivation, it is precisely this that plays a role in whether you go to this site and read my answer or not. Will you get out of bed, will you graduate from university? Motivation, as mentioned above, is closely related to learning and emotions, and to underestimate, let alone deny, is, excuse me, stupid.
Answer
2) Actually, I didn't say that monkeys have level 3 abilities. As far as I know, no. Moreover, not even all people have the third level. Well, at least it looks a lot like it. People with very low IQs exhibit behavior that is indistinguishable from Level 2 behavior. In other words, when abilities to the third level are low, their presence cannot be detected in an experiment.
I think monkeys only have a second level. But this is also, in a sense, logic. Indeed, in order to immediately figure out what exactly is wrong after the first unsuccessful attempt to get a banana, you need to have in your head some kind of mental model of what is generally happening here. The monkey’s reasoning looks something like this: “Now I’ll press another button so that it gives me a banana. Yes, before it didn’t do that, but on the contrary, it gave me an electric shock. But the situation has changed. The button that used to give me a banana now gives me an electric shock.” Simply put, the monkey is doing nothing more than performing logical reasoning. From the two premises “there is now current in the old banana button” and “different buttons always gave different results,” the monkey concludes that bananas are now produced by the old button with current.
5) That's exactly what it is. Information that is very different from what a person already knows, he simply does not perceive. He can read it, he can repeat it without understanding. But he cannot remember it for a long time, because he does not understand its meaning. She doesn't fit into his picture of the world. We can see evidence of this at any time on the Internet. But there is a more amazing example about the Indians and Columbus. When he sailed to their islands for the first time, they simply did not see the ships on which he sailed. Not in the sense that they were not reflected on their retina, but in the fact that the brain did not perceive the ships.
Answer
This is not logical in any sense. Not what the scientific world means by logic, at least (I’ll be a bore, sorry).
Man perceives EVERYTHING. That's just all. Perception is a process in which stimuli from outside world enter, roughly speaking, into our body and how it is processed into information, which we then compare with what is stored in memory. Another question is what we pay attention to, what we react to and what we remember.
The Indians did not see the ships as we understood them. Didn't they see something that the whites were sailing on, but they just didn't know the words? They saw it, which means they perceived it. They might not know the structure of the ship, how to build it, but they definitely understood that they were wooden and created by man. But you are right, the Indians’ ships did not fit into the picture of the world. Information came and went.
Answer
How is this not logical in any sense? I don’t know what the scientific world means by logic. But what I described is a classical understanding. This is literally classic. From the most Ancient Greece, where Aristotle invented logic (or rather, systematized it for the first time). That's exactly how he understood it. As a system of rules with the help of which one can draw conclusions from premises.
Yes, I probably didn’t express myself very well. By perception I did not mean the simple entry of signals into the body, but conscious perception.
That’s the funny thing about the Indians, that they didn’t see the ships. They generally denied their existence. According to their stories, ripples simply appeared on the water, from which people sailed in small boats. If they simply did not understand what these big things were a few kilometers from the coast, then this would have been a trivial situation. Anthropologists wouldn't rush around with her, citing her as an example at every opportunity.
I think that the construction of the simplest rules is possible already at the second level. Yes, the rules arise mostly spontaneously. They are not so much constructed as revealed from experience. But in the brain they are stored in the form of rules, and not in the form of a set of stimuli and reactions. By the way, learning in animals does not always occur spontaneously. You can often notice how they carry out certain studies purposefully. They try to do something to see what happens as a result.
Answer
You underestimate people. We don’t know if they had a system before Aristotle, but something tells me that they did, and he gave them shape and sorted them into new science. We also do not know whether there were already authors before him who expressed similar thoughts in written or oral form, but no one remembered them/lost their manuscripts, and so on. And to say that only after Aristotle did people understand how to think is a little incorrect. Didn’t mythology explain everything in a cause-and-effect way? It started to rain because the gods were angry because I behaved badly/brought the wrong sacrifice. Yes, thanks modern knowledge physicists we can tell how rain occurs. But let's be honest: we will never prove the presence or absence of gods/God. We can only believe that they either exist or they don't. Even physics is not omnipotent: the more it reveals, the more questions appear. As, indeed, in any science. What I'm getting at: in antiquity before Aristotle there was logic, of its own, but it was there. We do not know the exact moment of its appearance, and we will never know. At the second level, it is possible to build associations, but not the simplest rules. Rules must be followed and formulated without personal experience, and they appear only at the seventh stage: for example, we all know that killing people is bad. Or you can't kill at all. And most of us know this without first killing someone and then standing over the corpse in the style of “Holy crap, how bad, I won’t do that again.” In order to develop rules, you need to think. Animals cannot think from a human point of view. They do not have such a complex brain and it is not worth ascribing to them anything without instincts or basic needs and emotions. They have memory, yes. But it will only develop if some information is useful for survival. Even so, the monkey from your example: why was he given a banana and not a ball? The banana is of great value and guarantees her survival. And logic, from the point of view of the same Aristotle, is built on the desire for knowledge, creation, philosophizing, not necessarily in pursuit of “base” needs
Answer
Well, strictly speaking, yes. We cannot know what happened or did not happen with logic before Aristotle. But there is no way to count mythology as simple logic. Mythos and logos are traditionally opposed to each other, as things that are completely different in essence. If they are similar in some way, then this is pure coincidence. I recently answered a question about how to distinguish the real will of God from one’s own conjectures. And there already in the question itself there was an important point. This is a clear indication that in general there is such a problem that one would like to distinguish the true will from speculation. So, within the framework of the mythological picture of the world, there is simply no such problem. Speculation about why the gods were angry and how they can be appeased is no worse. Moreover, there is no distinction at all between “conjectures and nonsense”. Because no one believes that there is anything other than speculation. There are simply more experienced people whose conjectures deserve attention, and there are less experienced people who do not have their own conjectures.
And even if we define the presence of logic through the ability to learn without personal experience, then even then monkeys have logic. There are cases where monkeys taught their cubs to use a hollow blade of grass as a straw to suck out tasty ants from the depths of the anthill. Moreover, they taught without using a real anthill. The cubs didn’t understand why all this was needed at all. They thought it was some kind of game. But when their mothers took them to a real anthill, they immediately downloaded from their memory their knowledge of how to use a blade of grass.
Answer
1.Depression. I was lying at home for almost a year and couldn’t and didn’t want to do anything. I WAS VERY ILL. I slept for 16 hours. Health has deteriorated. I hated everything and everyone, including myself. I was even too lazy to eat. I hardly talked to anyone. I didn’t see any meaning in life. I was infuriated by the stupidity of people, the routine, the rush, the work. Before that, I worked very hard and put in all my strength. I got it after a year of work - nothing. There were even moments when I thought about suicide, I’m not kidding. These were just thoughts, but nevertheless, they visited me.
If it wasn't depression, then how bad is it for people with "real" depression, hmm?
2.Arachnophobia. Since childhood, I have been afraid of spiders and cobwebs. I'm afraid even of little ones. Big ones make me nervous.
3.My model was built “on the knees” and without in-depth knowledge. Therefore, I apologize for the relative stupidity of the “terms” (logic, autologic, reactionary, etc.).
I would like to add that it is part of another mechanism of our psyche and is under motivation in the hierarchy. I can’t say more, because... There are a lot of ideas, we need to watch.
4. I’ll also add that she has lost part of her potential. Passively works at 50% of efficiency. In order for it to work actively, you need to launch the “debugging” mechanism yourself in order to analyze and correct “undesirable” emotions or decisions.
5. I agree that emotions still serve as a motivator for action. BUT there are exceptions, I'm sure. I won’t give an example yet, otherwise combustion will start. After.
6. I distinguish between 2 motivations. The first includes the needs for oxygen, food, etc. Regulated by emotions(?). The second represents social benefits. That’s why I don’t recognize her at all. It doesn't work for me. I can’t even imagine how it is regulated (perhaps not basic emotions?). This is what I will think about (point 4).
7.You are here so much smart words They wrote that I was embarrassed. I really feel your level of knowledge.
8.I'm tired of typing a lot. Print here :)
Answer
I recently learned an interesting fact. When euthanasia was allowed in Belgium, to everyone’s surprise, it turned out that a lot of people who simply did not want to live were turning to this service. They do not have incurable diseases or anything else that would explain the desire to voluntarily die. They said that they simply did not see any meaning in their lives. At the same time, all clients are required to be screened for depression. So they were not found to have any depression. People are simply tired of living.
Answer
Comment
In my practice, relationship issues make up approximately 70%. This is a very large percentage, it shows how significant the sphere of relationships is in our lives. Even health, as it turns out, is a much smaller need.
Why are relationships so important to us? Why are they, more than the rest of life, a source of happiness? It turns out that man is such a complex and developed creature that he cannot be satisfied with instinct. Satisfying hunger, relieving physical pain, surviving in unfavorable conditions, a person would like to do all this with pleasure. It is this kind of pleasure and satisfaction that another person brings to him, who will not only enhance the result of the action, but will also create a state of comfort, happiness, reciprocity, understanding, and the significance of his actions. The state of recognition, acceptance, and being in demand by other people is such a large area of personal satisfaction that not a single person in the world can be happy without a relationship.
In our youth, we usually do not notice any difficulties in this area of life. This is due not only to the naivety of ideas about life, but also to the underdevelopment of the sphere of pleasure: we simply do not yet know how much happiness, or vice versa, another person can bring. And if we don’t know, then we don’t suffer. Further experience comes, but how often it is unhappy!
It should also be added that this area of human life is too poorly studied by science. Why did such an important area of life for us turn out to be extremely unexplored? Perhaps because we underestimate its complexity. But I have another answer: science is based on logic, and relationships are extremely illogical. They cannot be studied using logic.
Let's compare the laws of logic with land (earth) in the sense of stability and predictability of the movement of an object. And the emotional-sensual sphere - with water, the surface of the ocean. A completely unstable environment. However, there are people who risk swimming on such a surface. Then this instability itself is taken by them as an algorithm and any movement across the ocean will be like a rocking motion, which will also be different at each moment of time. Instability and “rolling” will definitely be present in any relationship.
Logical thinking (left hemisphere) tends to be straightforward and consistent. It follows from this that a logically developed person will come up with rules and laws of communication, with the help of which he can build relationships correctly. Such a person moves in a relationship following the law or canon (constitution, job description, morality, duty, ideas about marriage and responsibilities in it, etc.).
The feeling type of person acts in the opposite way. He has active imaginative thinking (right hemisphere) and his operating principle is as follows: when communicating, an emotional wave is sent to the subject (its nature has also not been studied, a signal similar to ultrasound, like in bats). This wave scans the emotional and sensory state of the subject and returns back to the right hemisphere, where the signal is analyzed. After this, thinking produces the result of the analysis: is it worth getting closer to this subject and for what specific relationship. The analysis contains visual, olfactory, and any other information.
It is important for us now to understand that the principle of operation of the right hemisphere is spontaneous and illogical. He almost doesn’t need general rules, because it sees the state of the subject at the current moment, and therefore builds more real and concrete relationships now.
The feeling psychotype was created by nature specifically for relationships with living beings. We call people who are sensitive to wildlife humanists because of their sensitivity to plants, animals and people. Accordingly, they need to constantly pay attention to the sphere of relationships, because they, one might say, physically feel its fluctuations and deviations. And if this is a close relationship from which it is impossible to get out or build an ecological distance, then such people suffer very much.
A logician in its pure form does not build relationships, does not tune in, but acts according to established rules. The emotional state is not clear to him now, he doesn’t feel it himself, he needs to explain. But you can’t say with adjectives and participles: “I feel bad, I’m not collected today, it’s a terrible day.” These are actually emotions that do not provide information to logic. You need to say more specifically: “I’m sick, I won’t be able to go to work until Monday.” Or: “I’m at the clinic with my child, there’s a long line here, have lunch without us,” etc. It is completely unacceptable and ineffective to raise the tone: “Why don’t you feel me, don’t you want to understand?!” He has nothing to do this with; the organ that registers feelings is simply missing. But the feeling type cannot understand - how can you not feel it?!
A logician almost always has a narrow range of relationships and a poor range of pleasures from them. Nature created such a psychotype for working with information and building intelligence. Relationships are an absolutely unimportant area of life for him. And in the first place will be progress, work, career. For a logician, order in everything is important, following a rule or law.
Nature almost always unites contradictory people into one pair, and in order to maintain relationships, we must first understand who is in front of us? What approach should you take towards this person? It is obvious that the logician will never be able to satisfy the depth of the heartfelt intimacy of the sentient. Illusions of one's own perception and strong desires They give the feeling person, on the one hand, a chance to reveal feelings, but on the other hand, they do not allow them to see the partner’s real possibilities for reciprocity. It turns out this game: the feeling one loves, and the logician allows himself to be loved. This is the most common combination with high contrast. But they both need such a game, because... everyone does what they can. But the opposite is impossible. If they change places (which often happens in a midlife crisis), then the couple breaks up.
However, I can add that extreme misunderstanding is quite rare, because... people do not have a pure psychotype; in each person logic and the feeling sphere are developed in some individual proportion.
And we can summarize: the compatibility of a particular couple, the amplitude of contradictions and the possibility of joint implementation are related to the relationship between feelings and logic.
The collective tendency, the so-called "spirit of the times", will also have great importance to implement relationships.
During the USSR, human needs were forcibly limited and unified, we were a single community, Soviet people. Let's add to this the complete disregard for sexual relations and the wonderful, wonderful moral education. Can we compare relationships then and now? What changed? There is no single social norm for relationships - deviant deviations immediately appear, sexual minorities, a variety of states of life and pleasures now seem to have the right to live nearby, even if other people do not like it. The palette of relationships, not restrained by any moral criteria, begins to spread into the asocial, psychopathological and creatively exclusive. A quarter of a century has not passed, and none of the experts can say what the norm of relations is.
Our time is characterized by the successful development of logical disciplines and specialties, humanitarian professions reduced to a minimum, as well as their wages. The collective tendency towards the development of logic suppresses all moral and humanitarian criteria and successfully ensures the further stratification of society, the loss of general rules culture and respect, without which relationships cannot take place.
In Europe, the classical institution of marriage has been practically destroyed. Many European countries have recognized same-sex marriage. If you compare an ordinary marriage and a same-sex marriage, then it immediately strikes the eye that the second as a type of relationship is much poorer and simpler, has less responsibility and the beauty of gender self-expression. Such a limited phenomenon can develop in countries with a very strong development of logic and suppression of the sphere of feelings and relationships.
Trends in the European region now largely influence the Slavic space. If we seriously want to unite with it, then for the sake of our safety we must correlate the mentality of Europe with our own traditions and understanding of relations. It is possible that the deep Slavic soul is capable of greater beauty, depth and joy in communication between beings of the opposite sex, and the deepening of the contradiction creates a difference in potential and, in connection with this, a maximum variety of possibilities. Again, children immediately learn to build relationships with both sexes of their parents, which will be very useful to them in life.
Today in Ukraine, out of every two families, one survives. Millions of disappointed people, children growing up in an incomplete family, and then in a second, third marriage, adopted. A situation left to its own devices tends to get worse.
In the USSR, social services worked, divorce was postponed for a month, analysis was carried out by specialists, and spouses were helped to overcome difficult situations. Public opinion or the opinion of a specialist can greatly influence internal relationships, because people most often want relationships, but cannot build them.
Now, when there are no correct criteria, it is impossible to regulate the crisis situation. Each spouse is simply right in their own way. Individual righteousness can reach the point of any immoral attitude towards loved ones; relationships are not regulated by law, cultural tradition is blurred, and society doesn’t care either. And at weddings, for some reason, they still wish: “Advice and love” and advice (the culture of discussion, the ability to listen and understand each other) for some reason still comes first. Since society does not create the quality of psychological readiness for marriage, then no matter what we call it, it will not survive among us on its own. And what is formed for the sake of procreation is another form of cohabitation, built not on mutual feelings, but on the desire to survive, reproduce and consume each other legally.
We encounter selfishness primarily in close relationships. Only culture and morality, partly included in legislation, determine the criteria on which one can rely in a conflict of relations. Be it a conflict between a boss and a subordinate, a teacher and an aggressive teenager, an old mother and a son selling her apartment. The morality of society is based on social and legal law, which we will write for ourselves if we want happiness.
But until this happens, a lot of time may pass and life will be lived. How can you improve your capabilities in such a difficult time and still have friends and loved ones? Is it possible to change the quality of relationships now?
Of course, people are such complex creatures that each case is unique. Still, there are some general tips that can significantly improve the situation today.
Determine your motivation for getting into a relationship. Be honest with yourself, write down in more detail what you want from your partner, by and large. And in small ways too. It should be something so meaningful that without it the relationship will be meaningless to you. It is very good if your partner does the same and you exchange leaves and discuss your motivations.
Try not to write phrases like: “I want to have a happy family.” At the same time, it is still not clear what you call family and what exactly happiness is for you. Once at my appointment ex-wife drug addict said that a happy family- this is when the husband has no bad habits.
If you meet a person and cannot understand his motivation, or yours, it is better not to make a final decision. The relationship is not ripe for marriage.
Based on the previous point, take responsibility for your desires and, if there is no partner, start looking for him where the people you are interested in may be. Understanding is always higher where people are doing the same thing or have the same goals and directions of development.
Do not create an idol for yourself out of your partner and your relationship with him. Most often, this problem arises in a person of the feeling type, for whom relationships become an extremely significant value. Life always destroys such relationships, offering the dependent person to experience freedom and self-sufficiency and begin to enjoy it. If the meaning and happiness of your life is only family and close people and there are no other areas of happiness, this is a very formidable symptom.
In my practice, a very common case of family breakdown is what “grandmothers” call the “crown of celibacy”: too strong attachment to family, children and relationships. To show that a person is very “attached,” life makes relationships unbearable, unfree, unhappy, and such a person will still, suffering terribly, maintain them, developing unhealthy, sadomasochistic relationships. Relationships should increase the quality of your life and its possibilities.
When you are attracted to your partner, sex cannot be asked, demanded, or bought. You need to learn to control desire by offering attention, feelings, affection. Foreplay, which increases intimacy, is present in any cultural tradition as an opportunity to learn to love in your partner that which is not the body, but also needs signs of attention and mental pleasures.
Relationships are voluntary and mutual. Given its initial instability, we must learn to distinguish between normal tone, activity and fatigue in our partner and ourselves. Those. be in tune. In each of these states, fluctuations in desires will appear at that moment, which we can classify as being within the limits of the norm and the ability to satisfy them or impossible for a given couple.
The extreme deviation is asocial desires, i.e. bringing outright harm or mental pain to someone. You also need to immediately respond to selfish use for your own purposes, pressure, manipulation and outright aggression. It is not possible to build a normal relationship with a person who has such behavior, and there is a struggle for freedom from such relationships. Moreover, he himself does not want to break off the relationship. During the consultation process, it may turn out that he calls love completely sadistic feelings, the desire for power, control over your life, consumption of your material and life resources.
Pay attention to positive actions in your direction. What a person does here on his own, without coercion, is the level of his development and the depth of his capabilities.
Intimate relationships are mainly an area of desires and pleasures, and they occur if partners coincide in the areas of recreation and entertainment. You need to pay attention to this again before marriage: how long and how well we rest together. If things don’t work out together, then the husband goes fishing, and the wife goes to the theater. Of course, to some extent our desires may not coincide, but if we can satisfy them in the presence of a partner or with his knowledge, and this does not violate joint comfort, then everything is fine. After all, you will have to live with this person and be in the same space 24 hours a day. All mutual desires will manifest themselves, bad habits, Lifestyle. For example, if one partner eats everything in any combination, smokes and drinks, and the other practices yoga, this is a serious obstacle to living together and having a common rest. The struggle for your image and quality of life is inevitable.
At work, in society, we must withstand the necessary stress, but at home, every person would like to allow himself rest and relaxation, the freedom to do what he wants. If you and your partner are not mutual in this, the relationship cannot be saved.
And in conclusion, I would like to add that none of us exists on our own. It is impossible to live in society and be free from its norms of communication. Power tendencies recent years, the struggle for power, influence and material wealth from social phenomenon smoothly flowed into the relationships of loved ones and relatives, making their lives unbearable. Every person who comes to a psychologist thinks that complex and difficult relationships happen only to him and in his life. But the statistics that a specialist can derive lead to disappointing generalizations: we have become inhumane, we have stopped loving, respecting and appreciating each other’s individual uniqueness. It is possible that these should not be words, but specific actions that create the opportunity to live together. I really want to say this in the words of an old Soviet song: “It’s possible to live without love, of course, but how can you live in the world without love…”
The modern world logic and the left hemisphere rules human brain. However, you cannot do without the right hemisphere: it is responsible for both non-standard decisions in business and motivation (necessary, for example, for losing weight); with its help, advertising convinces buyers, and a lover conquers his chosen one. How else is the harmonious work of both hemispheres of the brain useful in the modern world?
Today there are more and more scientific evidence that the capabilities of the brain are fully revealed only when both hemispheres harmoniously participate in the work. The left or logical hemisphere deals with words, numbers, logic, analysis, lists and sequences. The right hemisphere - also called the creative hemisphere - is responsible for images, rhythm, color, fantasies, dreams and spatial perception.
Over time, the West has shifted to relying exclusively on the left hemisphere of the brain, as this has traditionally been the path to success. For creative thinking, we need imagination, and therefore “access” to the right hemisphere of our brain.
On initial stages In education, children use both sides of their brains, integrating numbers and rhythm, words and pictures, logic and music, learning and play, shapes and color. Using these techniques, they absorb knowledge at incredible speed. They learn to walk and talk, read and write.
What happens next? Traditionally, we decide that at about the age of seven, a child is old enough, so instead of color picture books, which affect the whole brain, we make him read black and white books, instead of games, he must sit still and listen to the teacher. This marks the transition mainly to logical thinking, which is a huge mistake.
True, in the era of personal computers, this error is apparently beginning to be corrected, and quite unexpectedly. Programs actively use color and graphics. Computer games make the whole brain work. Young people demand images, movement, music from their computers. This helps prevent a final slide into the world of purely logical thinking.
What can the right hemisphere do?
Some companies already have experience successfully using a model that allows you to use both hemispheres of the brain.
In area funds mass media The transition from radio to television took place very quickly. Television visually affects the right hemisphere of the brain while supporting the left hemisphere through verbal logical reasoning. And the most successful radio advertising forms images in the consumer’s head (the sphere of activity of the right hemisphere), and does not rely only on logic (for which the left hemisphere is responsible). Over time, television has changed from black and white to color, and this further stimulates the right hemisphere.
In business during presentations often use visuals and color that appeal to the right hemisphere, rather than just logical presentations.
Sellers When communicating with a client, they use not only logical arguments, but also visual means and demonstration. They know that it is impossible to achieve success only through a standard written description.
The human brain is a kind of computer. Whole-brain techniques are nothing more than software. Nevertheless, many people continue to habitually use outdated programs, although they require the latest versions for their personal computers.
The Right Brain and the Creation of Motivation
What capabilities does your brain have to create motivation? To give a simple example, many people know they need to lose weight or go on a diet. But few succeed. The main reason is that for them it is just a matter of logic - they really need to lose weight. However, this is a difficult and painful process, and logical motivation alone is clearly not enough to achieve success.
Most effective method- use emotions and imagination of the right hemisphere of the brain to create motivation to achieve the desired result. A combination of carrot and stick will bring success.
The role of the sweet gingerbread is played by the idea of how you will look and feel when you lose those extra pounds, and how others will perceive you. Imagine a huge belly. Or take a photo that clearly shows your belly. Or imagine slender thighs. Or a non-sagging chin. Consider the additional benefits of losing weight, such as being able to wear certain clothes. In your fantasies, you can also imagine your sexual partner - imagine how everything will happen when you achieve the desired shape.
Add a whip to the gingerbread. Develop deep dissatisfaction with your own appearance, as well as with how others may perceive you - a fat log, not taking care of yourself, a degenerate person. Imagine yourself naked - a rather pathetic sight.
Using the right hemisphere generates stronger motivation than the purely logical approach characteristic of the left hemisphere of the brain. This is true not only for those who want to lose weight, but also for other areas of personal life and professional activity. Motivation increases 50 or even 100 times when the whole brain is involved in its formation. Those who ignite their passion for something have a greater chance of achieving outstanding results.
Features of brain function in women and men
The left and right hemispheres of the brain are connected by a thick bundle of nerve fibers called the corpus callosum. Interestingly, women have a much thicker corpus callosum than men. This is a scientifically proven fact.
However, scientists have not proven that the thicker the corpus callosum connecting the right and left hemispheres, the faster the connection between them. Or the thinner the connection, the more difficult the connection. If this assumption is true, it may explain some of the differences in the behavior of men and women.
In ancient times, men often left home and went for long periods of time to get food or take part in war. They needed to separate logical functions from the emotions that accompanied separation from family. Over time, the thinner corpus callosum helped the man cope with this task.
Conversely, the thicker corpus callosum in a woman's brain helps explain her right-brain intuition, her ability to quickly switch between logic and emotion, and her tendency to get sidetracked in conversation as her right brain gets carried away. new ideas.
However, the corpus callosum in any person is thick enough to allow him to use both hemispheres of the brain at will.
Next time we will talk about ways to help activate the right hemisphere of the brain.
Comment on the article "The secret of success: logic or emotions? Connecting the right hemisphere"
The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. Features of brain function in women and men. The left and right hemispheres of the brain are connected by a thick bundle of nerve fibers, which If this assumption is true, then...
The left hemisphere is responsible for language abilities, controls speech, writing and reading abilities. Using the left hemisphere of the brain, a person remembers facts, dates, names and controls their writing. The left hemisphere of the brain analyzes all the facts...
Sorry for intruding... our Leva Sucha is more than 5 years old, but her hand is undefined... We have been raising a fuss about this matter for a long time, right up to the sports school... They explain it this way: if both hemispheres work equally, they send signals simultaneously , in the end nothing works...
03/09/2010 23:27:00, February Alena Narbertovna. what is myelin responsible for? what is the risk of reducing it? 03/10/2010 16:44:32, natuska. Myelination of the main systems of the hemisphere ends in the eighth month of extrauterine life.
Definition of the leading hemisphere. Interesting things on the web. About yours, about your girl’s. Discussion of issues about a woman’s life in the family, at work, relationships. Otherwise, I would have already thought about it. that your computer is freezing. The point is. that those who have a dominant left hemisphere, responsible for logic...
The left hemisphere is responsible for language abilities. The right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for visual arts and music abilities. We connect the right hemisphere. My son's left hemisphere is not functioning at all. Development of the left hemisphere.
My son's left hemisphere is not functioning at all. He has had neurological problems since birth, we have been treated and continue to do so. Maybe you will be a little reassured by the fact that my left hemisphere practically does not function. This was discovered at the age of 14 after a concussion.
12. Modern logic. general characteristics basic logical systems of modern logic: modal, temporal, epistemic The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. The modern world is ruled by logic and the left hemisphere...
The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. Using the right hemisphere of the brain is relatively easy. These methods are literally up to you to master the program “Leave people alone, before they directly tell you about it.”
The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. The human brain is a kind of computer. However, the differences do not end with the fact that one person writes with his left hand and another with his right.
Admission is paid (150-300 rubles), the logic is: “I bought a ticket, I’ll definitely go.” ..the guest will enjoy a 4-hour lecture with music, free cakes and coffee during breaks. Inheritance scam. The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere.
A funny test that demonstrates the work of your right hemisphere (it is the one that recognizes visual information, is responsible for intuition and even, they say, for orgasm) Task: find a man’s head in the picture.
Occurs when the lower parts of the parietal lobe in the left hemisphere of the brain are damaged. The primary defect of this form of aphasia is a violation of the kinesthetic. I only heard that if the frontal lobes are affected, then these are precisely the places responsible for speech.
The right is responsible for figurative or abstract thinking. The left is for logical and concrete thinking. More often, in men, the left hemisphere is more developed; in women, on the contrary, the right hemisphere is developed. The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. About "male logic".
The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. The left, or logical, hemisphere deals with words, numbers, logic, analysis. Yes, in the case of inharmonious relationships, an inharmonious, distorted model is formed, but...
"ignoring the basic hemisphere (right), without the excellent development of which the left is only a half-developed impostor, develop superstructural abilities (reading, counting, writing) ahead of time... A very unsafe hobby..."
Check out other discussions: The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. How many sides of these cubes were uncolored? The point is that the letters are turned in different directions and you need to circle the “correct” letters.
The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. The right hemisphere of the brain is responsible for visual arts and music. The formation of the child’s secondary (gnostic) zones of the cortex ensures the formation of his tertiary zones...
The secret of success: logic or emotions? We connect the right hemisphere. One of the reasons for the impossibility of movement in cerebral palsy is the monolaterality of the brain.
In each of us, one part of the hemisphere is more dominant. It depends on whether we show up more: as a rational analyst or creative personality. Well, if you can easily switch the dominant influence of the brain hemisphere, your IQ can only be envied. Take the test and find out who you are.
In contact with
Classmates
Test "Silhouette Illusion"(Illusory silhouette), commonly called "Spinning Girl", has become one of the most popular tests for checking the dominant hemisphere of the brain. Its author, Nobuyuki Kayahara, approached the task with talent and ingenuity - the girl can simultaneously rotate both to the right and to the left.
Look at the image.
Is the girl spinning clockwise or counterclockwise?
If a girl rotates clockwise– your left hemisphere is more active, responsible for logic, memory, mathematical and linguistic abilities, and analytical thinking.
If the girl rotates counterclockwise– your right hemisphere is more active, which is responsible for emotions, non-verbal communication, intuition, musicality, art, imagination.
Now try changing the direction of rotation.
According to the author and Yale University research, people who can change the direction of a girl's rotation without straining their eyes too much have IQ above 160.
It is quite difficult to determine whether the currently active hemisphere is dominant in a person, but one thing can be said with certainty: those who can only change the direction of a girl’s movement with effort (or cannot at all) are people of a more practical and rational nature, while while those who easily change direction have the richest imagination and intuition.
Here is proof that the girl can indeed rotate in any direction.