Anyone reading this blog knows that I am fascinated by the “defense
lawyer” model of consciousness. This is
the model that attributes 95% of what we perceive, decide, and do is largely
governed by unconscious and semi-conscious processes. The 5% that is conscious acts more like a
defense lawyer than a manager or executive function. It doesn’t control what we do; but rather it
examines what we do, comes up with the best possible justification for why
these actions make sense and how they fit with our model of who we are.
But this analogy only goes so far and a recent article in
The Atlantic is an incredibly insightful editorial on why. Paul Bloom calls to task the researchers who try
to absolve everything bad we do because it is not “our” fault – it is the fault
of that unconscious other person lurking inside. How can you prosecute someone for a crime who
only did it because his genetics caused the underdevelopment of his neural circuitry?
How can you blame someone for overeating when they are at the mercy of an evolutionary
adaptation that draws us to sugar?
He makes two arguments.
One I agree with wholeheartedly.
The unconscious parts of your brain are still “you.” If those are the parts that led you to commit
a crime, it is still “you” who is to blame.
If the purpose of our justice system is rehabilitation then prison might
not be the best solution, but whatever the punishment is, it is still “you” who
should get it.
The second one I think is more ambiguous. He astutely notes that a statistically
significant impulse towards sugar is not The Manchurian Candidate or Total
Recall level mind control. Even if you
feel the need for the chocolate cake after dinner, doesn’t mean you can’t exert
some willpower and resist the urge. But
where I differ from Paul on this part is that the willpower muscle is also
largely governed by unconscious processes.
First, a lot of our behavior is triggered and largely completed before
our conscious attention even notices.
And second, the processes for directing attention, inhibiting the
unconscious response, and then executing a different response are also largely
governed by unconscious processes, even as they seem totally under our
conscious control. We still don’t know
enough about exactly how the neural processes and interactions play out to know
for sure, but we at least know that there really is no such thing as a purely
consciously directed action. That would
require direct links from the default network
to the muscles. Instead, the DN tell the
FPCN (executive control) to inhibit the salience network (unconscious response)
and to activate the DAN (response control), which then is linked to the
muscles. And none of these other areas
are conscious so they can get waylaid in process.
But even in this second discussion, all of these networks
are the same person. So no matter what
you do, it is still “you” doing it. The
way to use these insights is in design. We
can design environments, products, workplaces, marketing, public service
announcements, health care systems, etc to maximize the user experience and/or
the benefits to society. But to get back
to Paul Bloom’s main message, we shouldn’t be using them to excuse bad behavior.
