Study says go with 'gut reaction'

**
Stop thinking so hard
When it comes to big life decisions, it’s best to think with your gut. A new study has found that thinking too hard and too long, in fact, leads to decisions you’ll later regret. Researches at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands asked 80 people to think over major life choices, such as the purchase of a house or car, or a move to a faraway town. Half of the participants were then given a series of puzzles and brainteasers to distract them before they gave an answer. With little time to agonize, these people made snap decisions – and ended up being more satisfied in the end. People who deliberated carefully – delving deeply into the data and drawing up lists of pros and cons – ended unhappy with their choices. The results indicate that complex problems are better sorted in our unconscious minds, which have an instinctive wisdom in weighing multiple factors. “At some point in our evolution, we started to make our decisions consciously,” Ap Dijksterhuis tells New Scientist. “And we’re not very good at it. We should learn to let our unconscious handle the complicated things”
**

Presuming the conditions of the experiment were up to par and it was all handled very scientifically, then as an admirer of Rand I have to recognize how much this study coincides with a lot of what she said about *what* exactly our emotions are. If they are the logical extensions of our deepest convictions, it’s clear why this works. There is no ‘instinct’ or mystical gut reaction involved. The brain is a complex distributive network pattern recognition system and will recognize and react to things without the hindrance of waiting for the conscious mind recognizing it. Over analyzing a difficult choice could move you farther and farther away from those reflexive long ingrained reactions to scenarios. But embellishing a gut feeling when you do not base your emotions on rational goals or values is more dangerous, since your intuition will lead you down whatever random whim happens to catch your fancy. One wonders how these people can conduct decent scientific experiments when they toss around things like “instinctive wisdom” but I’ll have to chalk this up as empirical edification of Rand’s assessment of our emotions.

Michael

Post 1

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 12:23am

I'm sorry, but my gut reaction says that this study is wrong!

- Bill

Post 2

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 7:12am

"... then as an admirer of Rand I have to recognize how much this study coincides with a lot of what she said about ..." Michael F. Dickey
I'm sorry, but my gut reaction says that this study is wrong! - Bill

I was shocked when I read Ayn Rand's advice to write non-fiction from your subconscious. That's not how I do it. ... or maybe it is... Like any other writer, the work is best when I am "in the groove." I write a monthly column for the American Numismatic Association. The point of each assignment is to identify and describe several websites that are trusted and useful to collectors. By comparison, I just completed a class in pre-calculus algebra. In both cases, my mental state is the same: I focus on solving a problem. ... or so I think... In fact, starting the class was harder than I thought it would be. The first test was pretty easy, but I got 13/25 on the second quiz. Ouch! However, by the second test and second quiz, I was, as with good writing, "in the groove." I did not puzzle over every problem. They went more like the essay questions in my Police Ethics class. For the Law Enforcment curriculum, the philosophy is childishly simple for a practiced Objectivist and I just let the words pour from my pen. Good math is like that. The key to this problem is the definition of "problem." Apparently, life problems, such as which house to buy, require satisfying parameters that are not quantifiable, or not easily so.

The brain is a complex distributive network pattern recognition system

Long ago, people thought the mind resides in the heart. Then, they placed it in the liver. Now we put the mind in the brain. Some people will believe anything. In our day, we model the brain as a computer. In an earlier time, the brain housed your "spirit." In 1967, my psychology book said that the autonomic nervous system was like a thermostat. Apparently, control technology was simpler when the authors of that book were growing up. Perhaps the truth is that we only understand by analogy.

Post 3

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:43am

I think the key here is that there is a significant difference between 'gut' reactions and the 'intellectual vomit' (as I like to call it) of works of art produced by 'trance like' states.

To assert that all actions must be done with full cognizant assement (like the over analyzers in the study) is to negate the idea that the mind integrates our deepest values into our emotional reactions of situations. It would mean that our mind is never anything beyond the consciouss level of perception. But our percepts are integrated into concepts, and our concepts get integrated even further into reflexive reactions and responses. I think this is what people generally mean by a 'gut' reaction, even though they dont know it.

Getting in the 'groove' while working on things is, I would think, the intellectual equivalent of reflexively performing a complex chain of physical motions, like pitching a baseball, tying a complex knot or riding a bicycle. This is a lot different than the artist who enters a trance and does whatever random motion their body undertakes, whether it be writing out un-intelligable sentances or splattering paint on the wall.

Post 4

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 2:48pm

This is a lot different than the artist who enters a trance and does whatever random motion their body undertakes, whether it be writing out un-intelligable sentances or splattering paint on the wall.

This, however, is precisely what a true artist does NOT do, only those who claim this as artisting ...

Post 5

Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 1:44pm

     My gut-reaction is to go with Bill here. I feel that his feeling is correct.

     Besides, strictly speaking the article's writer/'research' interpreter practically argues (ahem) that we NOT think much about how we should view the, um, supposed 'findings.' --- In effect, it argues that we not think about it's conclusions and methodology involved, especially if we find the subject to be a major/important one for us.

     Ergo, I, like Bill, shan't.

     Interestingly, there IS a place for 'gut reactions.' Where there is no aspect (or time!) to cogitate upon and where decisions must be made amongst alternatives (total uncertainty re evaluating them, or, no time), 'gut's-decision is better than coin-flipping (or following someone else who decided, but, you're just as uncertain about their ability in the situation) way one can go. Hopefully, one's subconscious is aptly pre-programmed for the situation.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 5/20, 1:47pm)

Post 6

Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 1:49pm