There’s all that stuff from Hofstadter and Dennett about the sphex or digger wasp. The wasp stings and paralyses its prey, drags it to the entrance of its nest, drops it off while going below for a quick inspection and, if all is well, returns and hauls the goods inside. This at least looks intelligent – checking the safety of the nest while unencumbered seems a thoughtful thing to do. However, scientists have discovered that moving the wasp’s prey a few inches from the nest resets the wasp: it emerges from the nest, quickly relocates its food, drops it off at the entrance and goes below, again, to check things out. There’s at least one bug in the bug. The apparently cautious behaviour turns out to be a mindless sequence, which can be repeated again and again if you feel like moving the food again and again.
There’s the suggestion that we’re a bit like this, only much more complex. The idea is that maybe human behaviour is, deep down, sphexish too.
Two recent articles have dredged all this up for me again. I was reading about swarm behaviour here http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/index.html, and part of the gist of it is the claim that ants achieve what might as well be collective intelligence through a kind of force of numbers. If a critical number of foragers return to the hive smelling the right way, then more foragers go out too. No individual ant is bright enough to work anything out, but enough smells of the right sort trigger group behaviour which appears bright.
Another article got the worry about our own sphexishness going for me again, the thought that my own apparently intelligent action is nothing deeper than what the wasps and ants are doing. A recent study (http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp925821.pdf) suggests that one person in a group repeating the same opinion three times has about the same effect as three different people in the group expressing the same opinion. You can come to a conclusion about the group’s general mood based on just one loud and repetitive person, and you can give that conclusion about as much weight as you would were it based on the opinions of three different people. There is the further suggestion that there is some mechanism in us which drives an inference from the familiarity of an opinion to the conclusion that it is prevalent or widespread—even if the opinion is just being repeated by one loud person. Force of numbers again.
What you do with all of this is up to you, but it has me worried, again, about freedom and self knowledge and other things too — maybe a picture I like, having to do with what it is to be human. Should I be worried?
Freewill, in a new suit?
If anyone can answer what it is to be human, they usually start a religion. And then debase the entire concept in order to praise something else. (I am an atheist!)
I have some thoughts about what it means to be alive, but being human is something I can’t comment on: it would be like my trying to explain what being a twin is. I have no experience (nor can I have) in not being a twin, so have no points to compare. Likewise, I can’t comment on being human simply because I have no knowledge of any other state.
But being alive, yes I can comment on that. Being alive is not a philosophical, or theological conundrum. It’s simply a nice state to be in.
Carolyn Ann
Don’t worry. The irrationality of crowd behavior has been clear since ancient Athens. Plato especially feared it.
First of all - dont worry - nothing has changed.
Having read the second article it strikes me that the authors did not consider another possibility. It seems to me that indeed, one person being insistant - ie repetitive, does give one a sense of greater certainty - and therefor a willingness to consider that point of view. Furthermore - if one person keeps repeating a point of view, and others present do not contradict it, one may infer that the others agree ( often mistakenly).
As to what it means to be human, I will venture a few thoughts at this time. The question is obviously not meant as on of pure biology, namely that one has genes that came from other humans. It seems to mean what capacities does a living creature have, that irrespective of its external physical appearance makes it be human - in other words - what would one have to change in a chimpanzee to acknowledge that other than its appearance it was indistinguishable from a “human”.
From my own musings over many years the answer would include the ability to imagine, and act upon, possible futures that are further out than a few minutes or so. This ability is also central to the concept of free will - although I think the term free choice would be more accurate. One cannot will (ie wish for and then implement action toward a goal) that one has not imagined - and all ideas about the future are no more - and no less - than imagined possibilities. This leads to the conclusion that a being, even though it biologically (genetically) is human based, but no longer has - or never had - and never will again have - is not human in the psychological sense. That leads to ethical issues as to which sense is one to favor in dealing with persons with far advanced Alzheimers, anencephalic human babies - as strong examples of “incomplete” or even psychological non-humanity.
I welcome your thoughts.
First of all - dont worry - nothing has changed.
Having read the second article it strikes me that the authors did not consider another possibility. It seems to me that indeed, one person being insistant - ie repetitive, does give one a sense of greater certainty - and therefor a willingness to consider that point of view. Furthermore - if one person keeps repeating a point of view, and others present do not contradict it, one may infer that the others agree ( often mistakenly).
As to what it means to be human, I will venture a few thoughts at this time. The question is obviously not meant as one of pure biology, namely that one has genes that came from other humans. It seems to mean what capacities does a living creature have, that irrespective of its external physical appearance makes it be human - in other words - what would one have to change in a chimpanzee to acknowledge that other than its appearance it was indistinguishable from a “human”.
From my own musings over many years the answer would include the ability to imagine, and act upon, possible futures that are further out than a few minutes or so. This ability is also central to the concept of free will - although I think the term free choice would be more accurate. One cannot will (ie wish for and then implement action toward a goal) that one has not imagined - and all ideas about the future are no more - and no less - than imagined possibilities. This leads to the conclusion that a being, even though it biologically (genetically) is human based, but no longer has - or never had - and never will again have any imagination of the future- is not human in the psychological sense. That leads to ethical issues as to which sense one is to favor in dealing with persons with far advanced Alzheimers or anencephalic human babies - as strong examples of “incomplete” or even psychological non-humanity- when determining their status and relationships to the world and society.
I welcome your thoughts.
Not sure what I did to send the first reply - preedited .
Is there a way for me to delete it?
Hey Uwe, don’t worry!
Just post it again and it should have the effect of three different posters having posted exactly the same thing. Hmmm….
That one loud and repetitive person in the group - if they can influence anybody due to sheer force of aggressive personality, then those swayed by that have only themselves to blame! I seem to remember Nietzsche saying something about madness being the norm in Groups, and also that “what is said well is believed”, both apt here I think. From a social psychology perspective Cialdini has written an interesting book on influence called, er….Influence! As for the Digger Wasp, James, it’s wasp I don’t think you should be too worried !
I don’t think analytically-minded philosophers think about this sort of stuff enough - James excepted! Because their self-image is of disinterested seekers after truth, they tend to hold the line that argument stand or fall on their own merits, so all they have to think about are arguments and they can ignore all this psychology stuff. In a way, they are of course right. But it means they don’t tend to take seriously effects such as group-think. But philosophers are human (allegedly). So might it not be the case that they end up discussing too much of what a lot of people, or a few insistent ones, say they should be discussing? I don;t think you can explain why certain subjects, problems and theories are discussed as much as they are without some sociology and psychology.
Not a very smooth segue, but…
I like the forum on becoming a philosopher in the new TPM. Alain De Botton’s essay is worth the cost of the magazine. I always wanted to know what it’s like to be reviled. Apparently not too pleasant.
An interesting question–are academics just totally unfair to f him or is there something to their disdain? They are certainly nasty–what’s with Jonathan Lear calling him a “fool” in the NYT or Mary what’shername not responding to mail? But are they just unfair? (Isn’t it a little too easy to say “they hate me because I’m successful?”)
One thing’s clear-he’s a great writer. His essay in TPM is a little gem.
“unfair to f him”
That was a typo. Could be interpreted as intentional. No…
[...] Garvin sul blog talkingphilosophy, il blog della rivista The Philosophers’ Magazine diretta da Julian Baggini. La frase è [...]
One of the interesting things dominating my thought is how to seperate or integrate intuitions/feelings from/with reason, perhaps even to describe how they are generated. My big problem with intuitions as they’re generally accepted to work is that they seem to imply a sort of innate and real knowledge of the world but it’s hard to see how we develop such knowledge. Does it just beam itself into our brains when we’re born? It seems to me a simpler way to describe intuitions is actually through the process you’re highlighting here J.G, the whole more is better business. It is however I suspect seperate form our actual act of reason, it just applies itself to the same subject, in this case the conscious mind.
P.S Is there some kind of word limit on comments because all of my longer posts time out?
“Freedom” is like “God”–on the surface, it seems that such a being might be there or might not be. One must struggle to see the larger picture in order to draw the more truthful conclusion. As Strauss is fond of saying, philosophy is about the “vision of the whole,” whether that be the cosmos, its maker, or the whole human person.
We suspect free will, but have a hard time being sure. The other answers are tempting because they are simpler.