After decades of research, the conclusion of life science is that this story of liberalism is completely a myth. The so-called only true self is as false as the eternal soul, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny. If I really explore myself deeply, I will find that the unity I have always taken for granted is broken down into various conflicting voices, and none of them is "the real self". Human beings are by no means "indivisible", but are made up of many divided parts.
For example, the human brain consists of two hemispheres connected by a bundle of nerve fibers. Each hemisphere controls the other side of the body. For example, the right brain controls the left side of the body, receives data from the left visual field, and is responsible for moving the left arm and the left leg, while the left brain is just the opposite. Therefore, patients with right stroke sometimes ignore the left side of the body (for example, only combing the hair on the right side, or only eating food on the right side of the plate).
There is also an emotional and cognitive division of labor between the left brain and the right brain, but the situation is far from clear. For example, although most cognitive activities use two hemispheres at the same time, the degree is different. For example, in most cases, the left brain plays an important role in language and logical reasoning, while the right brain is more powerful in processing spatial information.
In the study of the relationship between left and right brain, many breakthroughs come from the study of epileptic patients. Patients with severe epilepsy will set off an electronic storm from one area of the brain and quickly spread to other areas, causing acute seizures. During the seizure, the patient can't control his body. Once they have frequent attacks, they often lose their jobs and cannot lead a normal life. In the mid-20th century, if all other therapies failed, the doctor's last resort was to cut off the nerve bundle connecting the two hemispheres, so that the electronic storm set off by one hemisphere would not affect the other hemisphere. For brain scientists, these patients are like gold mines, providing a lot of amazing data.
The most famous researchers are Roger Sperry (who won the 198 1 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his breakthrough discovery) and his student Professor Michael S. Gazzaniga. One of the research objects is teenagers. The researcher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. The boy replied, "Draughtsman." This answer is provided by the left brain, and logical reasoning and language are mostly controlled by the left brain. However, there is another active language center in the right brain of the boy. Although he can't control his spoken English, he can spell words with the alphabet card of Scrabble. The researchers wanted to know what the boy's right brain was thinking, so they scattered letters on the table and wrote them on a piece of paper. "What do you want to be when you grow up?" And put the paper on the boundary of the boy's left field of vision. The data from the left field of vision will be processed by the right brain, which can't control spoken English, so the boy said nothing, but his left hand began to move quickly on the table, collecting letter cards everywhere and spelling out "racing car"!
Another equally surprising behavior happened to WJ, a veteran of World War II. WJ's hands are controlled by different hemispheres. There is no connection between his two hemispheres, so sometimes his right hand will open the door, but his left hand will close it.
In another experiment, gazzaniga's research team showed photos of chicken feet to the left brain (responsible for language) and snow photos to the right brain. Then he asked the patient what PS saw, and he replied, "chicken feet." Gazzaniga then showed many pictures to PS, asking him to point out the best picture he saw. The patient's right hand (controlled by the left brain) points to a chicken, but at the same time, his left hand also points out to a snow shovel. Gazzaniga then asked an obvious question: "Why are you pointing at the chicken and the snow shovel at the same time?" PS replied, "Well, chicken feet have something to do with chickens. You need a shovel to clean the henhouse."
What's going on here? The left brain of the control language does not receive the information of the snow scene, and it has no idea why the left hand points to the shovel. Results The left brain invented some reasonable explanations. After repeated experiments, gazzaniga came to the conclusion that the left brain not only deals with oral ability, but also is an internal translator, who will use various clues to make up reasonable stories and try to find meaning for our lives.
Another experiment is to let the right brain, which is responsible for non-verbal ability, watch a pornographic picture. The left brain of the subject said, "Nothing, just a flash." But she immediately began to giggle and covered her mouth with her hand. "Then what are you laughing at?" The researcher asked. Left brain translator, also confused, tried his best to find some reasonable explanations, so he replied that there was a machine in the room, which looked very funny.
It's like the CIA carrying out a drone air strike mission in Pakistan, and the State Council doesn't know it. So when a reporter asked the State Council officials about this, they could only make up some specious explanations. But in fact, these officials have no idea why air strikes are needed. This is just nonsense. Not only patients with "cerebral fissure", but all human beings will use similar mechanisms. Time and time again, the "CIA" in our hearts acted recklessly without the State Council's approval or knowledge, and then the "the State Council" in our hearts could only make up a story that made us look like gentlemen. Often even "the State Council" finally believed his story.
Behavioral economists have come to a similar conclusion when discussing how people make various economic decisions. Or more accurately, who made these decisions. Who decided to buy Toyota instead of Mercedes-Benz, go to Paris instead of Thailand, and invest in Korean bonds instead of Shanghai stocks? Most experiments have pointed out that there is no "single self" to make these decisions, but there are many different and often conflicting internal entities in people's minds, which are constantly being pulled and decided.
Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002, made a groundbreaking experiment and invited a group of volunteers to participate in an experiment divided into three stages. In the "short" stage of the experiment, the subjects put one hand in 14℃ water for one minute, which will make people unhappy or even painful. After 60 seconds, tell them to take their hands out. In the "long" stage of the experiment, the hands of the subjects will be put into another container, and the water temperature is also 65438 04℃. But after 60 seconds, hot water will be secretly introduced into the container, making the water temperature rise slightly to 15℃. Some subjects will do "short" experiments first, while others will start with "long" experiments. But in either case, the third (and most important) stage will begin 7 minutes after the end of the two parts. The researchers told the subjects that they had to repeat one of the first two stages and were free to choose. Fully 80% people chose the "long-term" experiment and thought it was not so painful.
Although this cold water experiment is so simple, the significance it reveals has shaken the core of the whole liberal world view. Experiments tell us that there are at least two kinds of self in human body: experiencing self and describing self. Experiencing ourselves has always been our consciousness. So it is obvious that "long" experiments are even worse for experiencing yourself. You have to endure the water temperature of 14℃ for 60 seconds, which is already very uncomfortable. There is no shortage of "short-lived" experiments here, but then you have to endure the water temperature of 15℃ for 30 seconds. Although the situation is barely better, it is definitely not pleasant. For self-experience, after a very unpleasant experience, plus another unpleasant experience, it will not make the whole thing happier.
However, there is no memory in experiencing self. It can't tell stories. When we have to make important decisions, we don't ask what it thinks. When it comes to evoking memories, telling stories and making important decisions, we are responsible for another very different entity in our hearts: the narrative self. The concept of narrative self is very similar to gazzaniga's left-brain translator, who is always busy weaving the past into a story and making plans for the future. Narrative selves, like journalists, poets or politicians, don't tell all the details, and usually weave stories only with the climax and final result of events. The value of the whole experience is determined by the average of the peak and the end point. For example, when describing a "short" cold water experiment, the worst part (the water is very cold) and the last moment (the water is still very cold) are averaged, and the conclusion is that "the water is very cold". Then, the narrative self makes the same judgment on the "very long" cold water experiment, averaging the worst part (the water is very cold) and the last moment (the water is not so cold), and the conclusion is that "the water is a little warmer". The key point here is that the narrative self has no feeling about how long it lasts and doesn't care about the difference in the duration of the two parts of the experiment. Therefore, if you need to choose between the two, the narrative self will choose a longer experiment and think that "the water is a little warmer."
Every time the narrative self judges our experience, it doesn't care how long it lasts, but only adopts the "peak-end rule", that is, it only remembers the peak and the end point, and then averages them as the value of the whole experience. This has a profound impact on all our daily decisions. In the early 1990s, Kahneman began to cooperate with Donald Redmeyer of the University of Toronto. On the one hand, he studied patients undergoing colonoscopy, on the other hand, he began to study the difference between experiential self and narrative self. Colonoscopy inserts a small camera into the intestine through the anus to diagnose various intestinal diseases. This kind of examination is uncomfortable, and the doctor wants to know how to alleviate the pain of this procedure. Should we speed up the action to make the patient's long-term pain better than short-term pain, or should we slow down and be careful?
To answer this question, Kahneman and Redmeyer asked 154 patients to report their pain degree every minute during colonoscopy. When reporting, use a number from 0 to 10, where 0 means no feeling at all and 10 means unbearable pain. At the end of the examination, please ask the patient to report the "total pain degree" of the examination with the same number of 0 ~ 10. We may think that the overall score will be related to the sum of the scores reported every minute, that is, the longer the time, the more pain patients suffer and the higher the final overall pain score, but this is not the case in the century.
Just like the previous cold water experiment, no matter how long it lasts, the overall pain score will only reflect the law of peak to peak. Therefore, a colonoscopy lasted for 8 minutes, during which the patient gave the highest pain score of 8 points, while the last minute score was 7 points. By the time the test results were obtained, the patient gave a total score of 7.5. In another colonoscopy, the time was 24 minutes. In this process, the highest pain score is 8, but the patient's score at the last minute is only 1. In the end, the patient's overall pain score was only 4.5 points. In fact, the last patient's colonoscopy took three times as long as the first patient's, so on the whole, he suffered much more pain, but it didn't affect his memory at all. Narrative self is not the sum of all experiences, but the average.
So, which one will patients like? Is it a short but painful examination, or a long but careful examination? There is no unique positive solution to this problem, because patients have at least two different selves, each with different preferences. If you ask about experiencing yourself, it will probably choose a short time. But if you ask the narrative self, it would rather choose a long time, because it will only remember the average of the worst moment and the last moment. In fact, from the perspective of self-narration, it is best for doctors to arrange a few minutes of dull pain at the end of the examination, because this will greatly reduce the pain of the whole thing in the patient's memory.
Pediatricians and veterinarians know this technique very well. Many doctors will prepare a lot of snacks in the consulting room and let the children (or puppies) eat some desserts after injections or painful examinations. In this way, when the narrative self later recalls this consultation, the happiness of 10 second is enough to erase the anxiety and pain of many minutes before.
As for evolution, this trick was discovered long before pediatricians. Many women will experience unbearable pain during childbirth, which may make people feel that as long as they have been born once, no sane woman will be willing to regenerate. But a few days after delivery, the endocrine system will secrete cortisol and? -Endorphins can relieve pain, make people feel comfortable and even happy. Coupled with more and more love for babies and praise from relatives and friends, religious and nationalist propaganda, they will work together to turn childbirth from trauma into positive memory.
According to the research of Rabin Medical Center in Tel Aviv, Israel, the memory of childbirth is mainly reflected in the peak and the end point, and the overall duration has little effect. In another study, 2,428 Swedish women were asked to recall the delivery process two months after delivery, and 90% of them thought it was "positive" or "very positive". They have not forgotten this kind of pain (28.5% people think that childbirth is the most painful thing in the world), but they still think it is a positive experience. The narrative self has a pair of sharp scissors and a thick black marker to examine our experiences one by one. At least some frightening and unpleasant moments were deleted or erased in this way, and finally a story with a happy ending was sorted out and archived.
Most of our daily key choices, such as choosing a partner, career, residence or vacation, are determined by the narrative self. Suppose there are two sets of vacation itineraries for you to choose from: the first set is to visit Jamestown, Virginia, a colonial town with a long history, which was the first colony established by Britain in North America in 1607. The second trip is your dream vacation, which can be hiking in Alaska, sunbathing in Florida, or handsome girls in Las Vegas, without drinking or gambling. But there is a restriction: if you choose your dream holiday, you must take a pill to erase all the memories of this holiday before finally boarding the plane to go home. Good memories that happened in Las Vegas will really only stay in Las Vegas. Which itinerary do you want to choose? Most people will choose Jamestown, because most people's credit cards are controlled by narrative self, only care about stories, and feel that unforgettable experiences are just a waste of effort.
To tell the truth, the experiential self and the narrative self are not independent, but closely intertwined. The narrative self will also regard our experiences as important (but not the only) story material. In turn, these stories will also shape the feeling of experiencing self. For example, fasting in the month of fasting, fasting when preparing for physical examination, or simply having no money to buy something to eat, will have different feelings about hunger. The narrative self gives hunger different meanings, which will make the actual experience very different.
In addition, the experiential self is often powerful enough to destroy the most perfect plan of the narrative self. For example, I may make up my mind to control my diet and go to the gym every day in the new year. This great decision is the patent of narrative self. However, after a week, it was time to go to the gym, but I experienced it myself and took over. I just don't want to go to the gym now. Instead, I ordered pizza, sat on the sofa and turned on the TV.
However, most people agree with their narrative self. The "I" in our mouth tells the story in our mind, not the present experience that the body constantly feels. We agree with our own internal system and want to reason from all kinds of crazy chaos in life and weave a seemingly reasonable and consistent story. No matter whether the plot is full of lies and loopholes, no matter whether the story is always self-deprecating because of repeated rewriting. The important thing is that we always feel that we are a single and unchanging identity from birth to death (even after death). It is this feeling that produces a questionable liberal belief, which is mistakenly thought to be inseparable, and there is a clear and consistent voice in the heart, which provides meaning for the whole universe.
Note: This article is from Chapter 8 of the author's A Brief History of the Future, and the electronic version is from the official account of WeChat, Future Life Lab.