The Brain Is Not a Tool

Some psychologists claim that the brain is a tool. This claim can be construed either literally or figuratively. We argue that, in the former case, it is false, whereas in the latter case it has no place in scientific psychology. We also try to show why this discussion is relevant and suggest how a metaphor should behave to be of use in science.     

Train Your Mind,Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves. By Sharon Begley. 283 pp. Balantine Books,New York, 2008. $14.95

Journal of Religion and Health -     

The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation

In The End of Science, I argued that particle physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, and other fields of pure science have entered an era of diminishing returns (Horgan, 1997). Although scientists will continue refining and extending current theories and applying their knowledge in the realms of technology and medicine, they may never again achieve insights into nature as profound as quantum mechanics, relativity theory, the big bang theory, natural selection, and DNA-based genetics. One reasonable objection to the book was that mind-related research, of all current scientific enterprises, has the most revolutionary potential, and it deserves a more thorough treatment than it received in The End of Science. I responded to this objection by writing a book that focused on "mind-science"(Horgan, 1999). The Undiscovered Mind considered not only the debate over consciousness, which was the primary focus of The End of Science; it also reviewed the record of fields such as clinical psychology, psychiatry, behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, artificial intelligence, and neuroscience. I contended that there has been little progress in understanding the mind, replicating its properties, or treating its disorders—especially compared with the extravagant claims made by proponents of certain approaches. In this article, I summarize some of my book's main points.     

‘Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!’: Effects of Streaks on Confidence and Betting in a Binary Choice Task

Human choice under uncertainty is influenced by erroneous beliefs about randomness. In simple binary choice tasks, such as red/black predictions in roulette, long outcome runs (e.g. red, red, red) typically increase the tendency to predict the other outcome (i.e. black), an effect labeled the “gambler's fallacy.” In these settings, participants may also attend to streaks in their predictive performance. Winning and losing streaks are thought to affect decision confidence, although prior work indicates conflicting directions. Over three laboratory experiments involving red/black predictions in a sequential roulette task, we sought to identify the effects of outcome runs and winning/losing streaks upon color predictions, decision confidence and betting behavior. Experiments 1 (n = 40) and 3 (n = 40) obtained trial‐by‐trial confidence ratings, with a win/no win payoff and a no loss/loss payoff, respectively. Experiment 2 (n = 39) obtained a trial‐by‐trial bet amount on an equivalent scale. In each experiment, the gambler's fallacy was observed on choice behavior after color runs and, in experiment 2, on betting behavior after color runs. Feedback streaks exerted no reliable influence on confidence ratings, in either payoff condition. Betting behavior, on the other hand, increased as a function of losing streaks. The increase in betting on losing streaks is interpreted as a manifestation of loss chasing; these data help clarify the psychological mechanisms underlying loss chasing and caution against the use of betting measures (“post‐decision wagering”) as a straightforward index of decision confidence. © 2014 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Surprisingly Neuroplastic Human Brains: Reading,Science, Philosophy,Theology

Human brains, dramatically more complex than anything else in the known universe, are marvelously mutable. Recent neuroscience focuses on how humans create cumulative transmissible cultures which in turn shape mental development. When cultures become literate, cognitive powers escalate. Although until recently only a comparative few learned to read and write, this takes place with the serendipitous re-use of pattern recognizing capacities, such as those for recognizing faces. With sustained reading diligence, as required during education in science, philosophy, and theology, this results in advanced cognitive skills.     

Brain Science as the Analytic Fourth: Commentary on Paper by Michael J. Gerson

I support Michael J. Gerson’s aim to further the dialogue between neuroscience and psychoanalysis, especially in light of increasingly sophisticated brain imaging. Enhanced capabilities for simultaneous brain measurements inch interpersonal neurobiology ever closer to the psychoanalytic concept of intersubjective space. While it is inherently meaningful to distinguish between self and identity using lenses of brain science, Gerson’s argument would be significantly bolstered by a developmental perspective.     

人类社会认知的神经机制:来自社会脑研究的证据

社会认知是指从环境互动的过程中推测他人意图、情感和思想等内部状态的心理加工过程。社会脑假说认为,包括人类在内的灵长类大脑内肯定存在着一个旨在认识和理解他人表情的神经机制,在社会交往中通过该中枢迅速处理与他人相互作用的各种信息。本文通过回顾社会脑的构成与基本功能,镜像神经元的发现及功能,以及社会脑、镜像神经元对社会认知影响的相关研究,提出了人类社会认知不同于其他物种的三个主要区别。