I thought it was interesting how Haidt talked about the failures of self control and compared it also to the elephant and the rider. Even though our rational self can want to do something, there exists another part of our self that will sometimes override that decision. It's like what Dr. Clemens was saying about our keeping of New Year's resolutions and how it doesn't last very long. We can't just will ourselves to change which relates back to the idea of the divided self. I wonder why it's so hard for us to will ourself to do something and why we can't have total control. -Claire Weddle
Two insights I had from last week’s reading were: 1. That though the elephant, which represents our mind, can never be completely tamed, we can make it work like a team with the rider, our consciousness, to work towards the goal of happiness. 2. I liked the idea that the pursuit of happiness is not the same as true happiness, and that happiness can take many different forms for different people.
Response to this week’s reading: This week’s reading covered the various divisions of the self. These included: mind vs. body, left vs. right, new vs. old, and controlled vs. automatic. I found each of these to be fascinating. I especially liked when Haidt talked about our visceral response something and how our reasons to justify that response were invented after. The gut-brain was very interesting in that it shows our decisions are not only developed in our brain. When someone is trying to mask their initial response to a stimulus, they may be able to “fake it”; however, the person will give off automatic uncontrollable cues to show their true feelings (cringe, hairs stand up, etc.). Also the studies conducted by psychologists in the severing of the corpus callosum were intriguing. It was interesting how if, for example, the left eye saw something, then that memory could only be produced by means that the right brain could manage – and same with the opposite. If we can find a way to get these divisions of the self to also work as a team, then perhaps our goals could be met much more quickly and easily.
"For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh..."
This metaphor of the elephant and the rider is very central to the idea that the mind is divided in many ways. There is this struggle between conscious/reasoned processes and automatic/implicit processes illustrate the rider's inability to control the elephant by force. I like how this idea relates back to how people are unable to control themselves and continue to engage in self-destructive behaviors. The weakness of will. I found the division of mind vs body interesting, and how the gut brain functions automatically and with autonomy. People often follow their gut feeling, but until now, I never thought much about how people reason after the fact to validate the gut brain.
Response to Week 2 reading: I found it interesting how Haidt presented the four examples of divisions of the self to strengthen his analogy of the elephant and the rider. In my eyes, it seems that the purpose of the chapter was primarily to argue the legitimacy of his metaphor, which he presents as a novel idea that he claims to have developed on his own in the 1990s (page 13), even though Buddha presented a strikingly similar metaphor thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, he did present some interesting studies and concepts that pleasantly intrigued me like the split corpus callosum studies. However, I have an issues with the way he presented the idea of confabulation. From what I was able to gather, Haidt believes that human beings instantaneously like or dislike something and then come up with a reason for it after having already completed their appraisal. If this is true, and I still have my doubts, it would mean that we as humans have little control over what pleases or disgusts us, which goes well with the idea of the elephant, strengthening his use of the metaphor. However, after searching through google for more on confabulation, I was left with the impression that confabulation is not as normal and commonplace as he presents it to be in this chapter. He mentions that confabulation is something that regularly occurs when deciding on whether or not you like something as simple as a painting (on page 21), but other resources explain that confabulation is specifically a memory disorder. I really hope he's not trying to deceitfully present ideas and concepts like what he did with confabulation for the sole purpose of supporting his metaphor and the perceived legitimacy of the ideas he presents in the rest of his book.
Haidt presents an additional analogy for the mind for our viewing pleasure: Freud's concept of the id, ego, and superego. With this additional analogy, we find an additional separation of the mind that is more complex than simply the elephant and the rider.
However, he also provides a physical explanation for the separation of the instincts in the analogy of the brain. The amygdala, neocortex, and limbic system, which gives us an oversimplified explanation for why we think the way we do. This shows the new and old parts of the brain. Our mind and body are often conflicted.
Haidt also gives us insight into how our primal minds work with our rational minds through the concepts of confabulation & reason, where the rider becomes the lawyer of the elephant's actions. I found this to be incredibly interesting because it explains so many of our daily interactions with people. Whenever you get into a pointless argument with a friend, and you stop and ask why, sometimes you can't really find an answer - a phenomena explained by confabulation. Controlled and automatic processes determine how we react to gut feelings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how Haidt talked about the failures of self control and compared it also to the elephant and the rider. Even though our rational self can want to do something, there exists another part of our self that will sometimes override that decision. It's like what Dr. Clemens was saying about our keeping of New Year's resolutions and how it doesn't last very long. We can't just will ourselves to change which relates back to the idea of the divided self. I wonder why it's so hard for us to will ourself to do something and why we can't have total control. -Claire Weddle
ReplyDeleteName: Akash Gupta
ReplyDeleteTwo insights I had from last week’s reading were:
1. That though the elephant, which represents our mind, can never be completely tamed, we can make it work like a team with the rider, our consciousness, to work towards the goal of happiness.
2. I liked the idea that the pursuit of happiness is not the same as true happiness, and that happiness can take many different forms for different people.
Response to this week’s reading:
This week’s reading covered the various divisions of the self. These included: mind vs. body, left vs. right, new vs. old, and controlled vs. automatic. I found each of these to be fascinating. I especially liked when Haidt talked about our visceral response something and how our reasons to justify that response were invented after. The gut-brain was very interesting in that it shows our decisions are not only developed in our brain. When someone is trying to mask their initial response to a stimulus, they may be able to “fake it”; however, the person will give off automatic uncontrollable cues to show their true feelings (cringe, hairs stand up, etc.). Also the studies conducted by psychologists in the severing of the corpus callosum were intriguing. It was interesting how if, for example, the left eye saw something, then that memory could only be produced by means that the right brain could manage – and same with the opposite. If we can find a way to get these divisions of the self to also work as a team, then perhaps our goals could be met much more quickly and easily.
"For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh..."
ReplyDeleteThis metaphor of the elephant and the rider is very central to the idea that the mind is divided in many ways. There is this struggle between conscious/reasoned processes and automatic/implicit processes illustrate the rider's inability to control the elephant by force. I like how this idea relates back to how people are unable to control themselves and continue to engage in self-destructive behaviors. The weakness of will. I found the division of mind vs body interesting, and how the gut brain functions automatically and with autonomy. People often follow their gut feeling, but until now, I never thought much about how people reason after the fact to validate the gut brain.
- Corin Peterson
Name: Jovany Franco
ReplyDeleteResponse to Week 2 reading:
I found it interesting how Haidt presented the four examples of divisions of the self to strengthen his analogy of the elephant and the rider. In my eyes, it seems that the purpose of the chapter was primarily to argue the legitimacy of his metaphor, which he presents as a novel idea that he claims to have developed on his own in the 1990s (page 13), even though Buddha presented a strikingly similar metaphor thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, he did present some interesting studies and concepts that pleasantly intrigued me like the split corpus callosum studies. However, I have an issues with the way he presented the idea of confabulation. From what I was able to gather, Haidt believes that human beings instantaneously like or dislike something and then come up with a reason for it after having already completed their appraisal. If this is true, and I still have my doubts, it would mean that we as humans have little control over what pleases or disgusts us, which goes well with the idea of the elephant, strengthening his use of the metaphor. However, after searching through google for more on confabulation, I was left with the impression that confabulation is not as normal and commonplace as he presents it to be in this chapter. He mentions that confabulation is something that regularly occurs when deciding on whether or not you like something as simple as a painting (on page 21), but other resources explain that confabulation is specifically a memory disorder. I really hope he's not trying to deceitfully present ideas and concepts like what he did with confabulation for the sole purpose of supporting his metaphor and the perceived legitimacy of the ideas he presents in the rest of his book.
Name: Harrison Lin
ReplyDeleteWeek 2 Reading:
Haidt presents an additional analogy for the mind for our viewing pleasure: Freud's concept of the id, ego, and superego. With this additional analogy, we find an additional separation of the mind that is more complex than simply the elephant and the rider.
However, he also provides a physical explanation for the separation of the instincts in the analogy of the brain. The amygdala, neocortex, and limbic system, which gives us an oversimplified explanation for why we think the way we do. This shows the new and old parts of the brain. Our mind and body are often conflicted.
Haidt also gives us insight into how our primal minds work with our rational minds through the concepts of confabulation & reason, where the rider becomes the lawyer of the elephant's actions. I found this to be incredibly interesting because it explains so many of our daily interactions with people. Whenever you get into a pointless argument with a friend, and you stop and ask why, sometimes you can't really find an answer - a phenomena explained by confabulation. Controlled and automatic processes determine how we react to gut feelings.