Abstract
Neuroscientist
Faced with all this, you might expect us to be searching for rational solutions and sound ideas that would help us turn the tide. Surely rationalism, with its commitment to opinions and actions based on reason and knowledge rather than religious belief or emotion, is the best approach to solving the world’s problems. Instead, we’re seeing the rise of populism, growing cynicism and loss of confidence in evidence and expertise.
Can neuroscience throw light on our increasingly emotional public square and its growing anger? Clive Coen, neuroscience professor at King’s College London and chair of the Rationalist Association, is cautious: “Neuroscience focuses on the mechanisms underlying the brain’s functions. It’s not a tool for appraising ethical judgments or the merits of different opinions. In contrast, well-designed psychology research can provide insight into values.”
Coen cites the seminal work of Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, whose book Thinking, Fast and Slow describes two decision-making systems: System 1 is fast and intuitive; System 2 is slow and reflective. System 2 considers itself the prime mover (“we know how the world works, we make sensible decisions”), and it’s certainly the one hailed by rationalists. But according to Kahneman, System 1 is the hero system because System 2 is usually prepared to accept what System 1 tells it.
Maybe our current era is characterised by particularly toxic emotions. Have fear and the urge to scapegoat driven the populist mood and prompted our System 1 into overdrive? After all, in the background, like the constant thrum of a machine, there’s the relentless cycle of 24-hour news plus the echo chambers and algorithms of social media, feeding our fears and confirming our prejudices. At the extreme end of this spectrum, neuroscience has something to offer: raised activity in a part of the brain called the amygdala, as seen periodically with post-traumatic stress disorder, can impair lucid analysis of one’s circumstances. But is it disproportionate to refer to such a condition when discussing public sentiments?
Not necessarily, says Coen, pointing to the classic work of Ivan Pavlov, the Russian physiologist who discovered that dogs will salivate in response to a bell previously associated with food. Persistent exposure to negative representations, such as those portraying “others” as a threat, is likely to have Pavlovian consequences.
“Reflexes resulting in emotive rants in social media and below-the-line comments seem to be proliferating without restraint,” he said. “Pseudonyms shield individuals from accountability and screens obstruct personal engagement. The similarities between screen rage and behind-the-windscreen rage are striking.”
Perhaps the idea of memes (swiftly sharing ideas usually via social media), originally proposed by arch atheist and rationalist Richard Dawkins, can help us understand why emotions seem to be displacing reason. Coen said: “Their potency is essentially psychological and sociological.”
He added: “With the advent of social media, the capacity of memes to intensify mob action seems limitless. But the notion that personal responsibility may be dismissed because memes emerge in a self-powered way seems irrational and defeatist. It’s clear that action by individuals, if widely replicated, can change norms – eventually. Taboos on sexist and racist language are obvious examples. But fresh memes promoting System 2 decision-making would have to withstand the prevalent populist attitude to expertise.”
A good example of the power of the empirical sciences is provided by the short- to medium-term accuracy of weather forecasting. Coen reckons this has inadvertently set unrealistic expectations about forecasting in general.
“Journalists express outrage when pollsters ‘fail’. But in the economic, social and political sciences there’s no possibility of testing a single variable and rerunning the study to derive reliable principles,” he said. “When Michael Gove spoke disparagingly about experts, he was playing with the public’s mixed experience of forecasts. The inherent limitations in any field of study must be acknowledged, but Gove’s sweeping denigration is a disreputable hijacking of Kahneman’s System 1: an emotive trust-me-but-not-them.”
Coen reckons the topic of cryonics, the low-temperature preservation of human bodies with the hope that restoration to life will be possible in future, provides a useful test case for the problems of evidence versus blind faith.
“Cryonics companies are selling death as optional by promoting a set of apparently plausible assertions,” he said. “It’s true that a dead human in liquid nitrogen won’t decompose further. And they claim their antifreeze protects brain cells from bursting like frozen tomatoes: misplaced faith in yet another potion. Then, cloaked in caveats, they pitch the prospect of eventual resuscitation and cure of the disease that happened to be fatal.
“Where to start? Do you know and trust the advocates – is that even remotely relevant? For some decisions, personal experience is the only important factor: marrying someone is usually an honourable expression of faith. But in most other domains it’s unwise to pin your hopes on personal trust alone. Are the salesmen using suspiciously convoluted language? ‘The body isn’t actually dead; it’s just legally deceased’. Do the assertions defy fundamental principles? The warming up stage of the ‘resuscitation’ would inevitably restart the decomposition – basic entropy.”
CREDIT: Tang Yau Hoong/Ikon
Coen says being conscientious about checking information is ideal for ongoing, healthy democracies. “Never stop assessing the extent to which your opinions are favouring faith or evidence – be honest about the distinction.”
Perhaps we’ve always relied more on emotion than reason. But now it seems increasingly important to recognise the risks and pitfalls of copycat thinking: to use our brains before rushing to judgment, and to be aware of our predisposition to be emotional.
The online version of this article was amended on October 15th 2018 to correct an error in the text. The original standfirst read ‘Neuroscientist Clive Coen talks to Tess Woodcraft about why some people preserve their bodies after death and why we don’t tend to believe weather forecasts’. This has now been changed to ‘Neuroscientist Clive Coen talks to Tess Woodcraft about why some people preserve their bodies after death and the public’s reaction to forecasting’.