9 - CONSCIOUSNESS & DECISIONS
Given the EEBD as a model of the emotional basis of decisions,
the next step is to integrate it into a working model of consciousness.
Though the term "consciousness" is, perhaps, imprecise and ambiguous,
virtually everyone will agree that consciousness is not "sleeping," a
state which we typically experience at night. As a coarse definition,
we know what consciousness is not. After that, definitions become varied
and murky except most would also agree that consciousness has something
to do with "thinking."
Strangely, even this may not be quite right. Though the sights
and sounds of our consciousness change and flow, evidence points to the
actual processing, the actual thinking, as being below consciousness. As
G.A. Miller stated:
"Consciousness gives no clue as to where the answer comes from; the
processes that produce it are unconscious. It is (the) result
of thinking, not the process of thinking, that appears spontaneously
in consciousness."
(Miller, 1962, p. 56).
At first this may be difficult to appreciate, but the proof of
consciousness being an elaborate, bio-technological fabrication
can quickly be recognized. First, when talking to anyone, do you
think about constructing your sentences with verbs and nouns? Or
do they just "stream from consciousness?" Even if your speech is
basically "canned" and habitual, plopping the nouns and verbs into
appropriate places as well as putting the sentences together into
coherent ideas takes some form of processing and organization. Are
you "conscious" of these processes? Or do they "automatically"
happen?
This new and unusual concept about something else going on
"behind the scenes" is foreign and difficult to comprehend. Nevertheless,
you can see it with your own eye. (That's right, one eye.) In Figure 11
below is a classic psychological test drawing attention to the underworkings
of the mind:
Figure 11.
In the diagram, you will notice a tiny truck graphic to the left
and a small graphic of a face to the right. Cover your left eye and
focus your right eye on the truck. The little face should be
visible in your peripheral vision off to the right. (If not, then your
eye must be about a foot and a half from the screen!) Keep your right eye
on the truck only and move your head inward toward the truck and
then back out again. (Optionally, you can print this page and perform
this test by moving the page toward and away from your eye.) At some
point during the course of moving in and out, the graphic of a face
should disappear and then reappear (roughly, around 15-20 inches from the
image). Again, do not look directly at the face, just track it in your
peripheral vision while your right eye focuses on the truck. The reason
the graphic disappears and reappears is because the image falls on the area
of your retina where the optic nerve is connected. At that connection spot,
no light sensitive receptors exist. In other words, it cannot "see" or
process light in that area, and it has become known as the "blind spot."
Your mind, however, tries to compensate for the lack of information by
"fudging" an image. If both eyes are open, each "eye" borrows information
from the other to fill in both blind spots (one for each eye). If only one
eye is open, the mind fills in the empty spot from surrounding information
which, in the case above, is the grey background color.
As you observe this, recognize that it is obviously a process
of your own brain and mind - the graphic disappearing and reappearing.
As hard as you may try, this dazzling little trick is immune to any
attempts to control it, thus, it is outside of conscious control.
Nevertheless, it obviously supports part of your consciousness.
Another popular psychological parlor trick is the famous "after
image". In the green, black, and orange image of Figure 12 below,
stare at the tiny white dot in the middle of the image for about
30 seconds or a minute. When you finally look away, look immediately
to the right into the white area. You should see a red, white, and
blue "after image".
Figure 12.
Note how the after image moves as your eye moves. This image is obviously
not part of the page. It is not some trick software flashing the red,
white, and blue image. (If you wish, you can print this out in color on
white paper and test this with a "hardcopy.") Again, something in the
workings of the brain/mind creates the visual image and its colors in the
mind. And this "something" is NOT a conscious process. It supports the
conscious visual image, but the process itself is not conscious.
To add to this provocative display, it is well known that images
are flipped upside-down on the back of the retina as they pass through
the eye lens. For us to "see" an image of the outside world in its
proper perspective, the image received by the eyes must be re-flipped
by the brain. Clearly, consciousness is very complex with much happening
"behind the scenes."
CONSCIOUSNESS & PLANNING
To better define consciousness requires a deeper exploration of how
we use it. Sigmund Freud, one of the "ground-breakers" of psychology,
has provided many insights into the workings of the human mind and
consciousness. Highlighted by Frederick S. Perls, one of Freud's great
assertions was about the purpose of thought: "Denken ist Probearbeit" or
"Thinking is trial work." (Fagan and
Shepard, 1970, p. 16). Effectively, it means that we think in order
to plan our future, in order to prototype and model behavior prior to
using it. Perls' encapsulated the idea with the term, "rehearsing." For
Perls, we "rehearse" a sequence of behaviors in our minds before putting the
behaviors into action. Consciousness and thought allows us to take the most
expeditious course of action to exploit resources while avoiding dangers.
If for no other reason, consciousness would be naturally selected for this
ability to foresee and plan for possible hazards and gains.
Since we perform different types of planning with both "conscious
level" processing and "below conscious level" processing (like the visual
tricks shown above), thought must be deemed highly complex. Many of
our plans are formed in words and sentences in our minds, yet we also
create spatial (visual) plans. I recall mowing my lawn and thinking about
how to show the separation of verbal and spatial planning. Words and sentences
were linking up in my mind while simultaneously I was mowing tufts of grass
around my patio and bushes. It suddenly dawned on me that the answer
to my search was right before my eyes. The words and sentences in
my mind had no relation to the grass I was mowing, yet the grass was
being trimmed in a logical and effective manner. Obviously, I was
doing it. Part of my mind was choosing the next area to cut and
redirecting the lawn mower through eye-hand coordination. Meanwhile,
the verbal portion of my mind was oblivious to the mowing and was off
on a tangent with various verbal scenarios. It was clear to me that
concurrent with my verbal planning, I was performing spatial planning.
Specifically, I visually perused the ground about me deciding
what parts needed mowing and which did not. With bushes and a patio to
contend with, I had to ensure that I did not damage shrubs nor scrape
mower blades on the patio cement. All of this "thinking" was happening
without my use of words or sentences. I was simultaneously performing
completely separate spatial and verbal planning, so my conscious mind
must be capable of at least two different types of concurrent planning.
The above example may not strike home for everyone, but almost
everyone who drives a vehicle has listened to music or someone talking
during the drive. I seriously doubt that any chatter or music interrupts
driving actions like "steering left" or "braking." Nevertheless, steering
and braking are decisions, and they appear to be independent of our ability
to converse and listen. Personally, when choosing a parking spot at a
shopping center, I am alert to open spots and quickly react to open slots.
By the time I could verbalize, "Oh, there's an open parking spot to the left,"
the spot would likely be gone, or I may have passed it. My decision to take
an open space must be quick and without the slow interference of internal
verbalization. Clearly, we can make visual decisions without verbal support.
GLOBAL WORKSPACE THEORY
From the above, it appears likely that consciousness and thought have
multiple and complex facets. We have explored two senses being tied to
planning (vision and hearing). In all likelihood, some planning ability
may be tied to each of the five senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling,
and touching. For example, when eating food, do you consciously think or
plan which side of your mouth you will chew your food? Perhaps only when
you have a sore tooth, right? Have you found planning or conscious control
to be instrumental in scratching an itch? Perhaps only if you cannot reach
the itch such as when it is in the middle of your back. Most itching is
handled without interfering with conversation (verbal processing) and
observing (visual processing). Bernard J. Baars alludes to this complex and
varied conscious behavior in his Global Workspace Theory:
"Global Workspace theory is based on the belief that, like cells of the human
body, the detailed workings of the brain are widely distributed. ... To
organize this vast distributed domain there is a network of neural patches
that work together to display conscious events. Today the best candidates
for these loci of conscious experience may be the sensory projection areas
of the cortex, where the great neural radiations coming from the eyes, ears,
and the body first reach the surface of the brain."
(Baars, 1997, p. ix).
Perhaps the most stunning verification of a diverse consciousness comes
from Antonio Damasio who has related various components of conscious
thought to actual brain structures. He identified and named Proto-Self,
Core Consciousness, Autobiographical Self, Extended Consciousness, and other
major components of consciousness. From clinical research, he shows compelling
evidence tying each of these components to specific brain structures.
(Damasio, 1999, p. 234-276).
Baars separates the various components of consciousness into what
he terms "workspaces." Each of the conscious workspaces can be thought of
as akin to a "theater" - complete with actors, crew, and an audience. Baars
attributes this metaphor to the works of many from as far back as Plato and
Aristotle and to more recent adherents like Francis Crick whose "spotlight"
analogy is a central concept for Baars' approach. Another similar, and perhaps
more familiar description for a workspace, is the Gestalt idea of "figure
and ground." Regardless of your preference of terms, the analogy entails
a stage (theater model) or background field (Gestalt model) wherein the
various parts are highlighted by our attention creating a "spotlight on the
stage" or a "figure against the background." Baars has greatly researched
and extended the theater analogy into his elaborate and compelling Global
Workspace Theory.
NOTE: Though the theater analogy has many merits and benefits, Baars
cautions against strict adherence to it:
"We will not treat the theater metaphor as theory, ... we will use it just to
simplify the evidence."
(Baars, 1997, p. 54).
Thunderstorm, Truck, and Ice Cream Scenario
Many ideas have been presented thus far, but having a "true to life"
example may be best to illustrate these preceding ideas. First, let's paint
a scenario. It's summer, it's hot, and we're outside - we're sweating. Does
a dish of cold ice cream or an ice cream cone sound good? Sounds good to me!
This is not a "life and death" issue, of course, but ice cream seems very
attractive right now.
Okay, let's figure out how to get some ice cream (remember, denken ist
probearbeit). An ice cream store is across the street, but the street is rather
busy with traffic - fast moving trucks and cars. Just to enliven the moment, a
thunderstorm is approaching. Though standing out in the cool rain might be nice,
being struck by lightning would NOT be nice!
With the "thunderstorm, truck, and ice cream" scenario, each factor
would be processed in a separate workspace of the mind. The auditory workspace
would respond to the thunder, the visual workspace would handle the truck, and
the ice cream workspace (okay, some tactile or tasting workspace) would root
for the ice cream. Within the visual workspace, the truck would be the "figure"
part, or in the "spotlight." Even though other items would be in view - the
street itself, buildings and trees, and maybe other people - all of these facets
do not command our attention. They are "background" information, or the "props
on stage." Though we could switch our attention to any of the background props
and actors, attention would be difficult to hold on anything but the truck which
is a "commanding performer," looming large and fast.
The stage is now set with activities in multiple workspaces. But behind the
scenes are the stage crew helping the conscious storyline along. Baars refers to
these as "contextual operators" (effectively, "stagehands"):
"... contextual operators ... set the background against which
brightly lit actors play their roles. "
(Baars, 1997, p. 45).
These "stagehands" are the ones selecting nouns and verbs to pepper our speech.
They were instrumental in the processing of the "truck and disappearing face" trick
as well as the "red, white, and blue" false images. Whether it be flipping
upside down images from the retinas, or suppressing background noise, or any
of a number of support functions, the stagehands of the mind are ever-present and
ever-active during our conscious state.
WORKSPACES & VALUES
To add emotional "values" to the ice cream, traffic, and thunder of our
budding scenario, the EEBD must be integrated with the workspace processing.
("Values," again, would be what Antonio Damasio calls "somatic markers" and Victor
Johnston calls "hedonic tone.") The auditory workspace may focus on the thunder,
but without a value (positive or negative), the thunder would have no meaning.
However, if any thought of being struck by lightning is considered rather unpleasant,
then a negative value must accompany the thought of thunder. In Baars' theater
analogy, this negative value would be the "cheers or boos and hisses" from the
"audience" of the mind. Being struck by lightning should have a strongly aversive
(negative) value and would take control of the auditory workspace. It would fall
under the "spotlight."
Additionally, due to the aversiveness of being struck by lightning, with a
strong chance of being killed, some avoidance plan (or reaction) should occur. One
might expect this to be "run and hide." Meanwhile, the visual workspace might
be focused upon an on-coming truck. The visual workspace may react with "don't
run in front of the truck". Of course, the workspace for internal sensations is
still wanting ice cream, but it would be overpowered by the much more potent "run
and hide" value or the "don't run in front of the truck" value. With these active
values in the workspaces, the strongest value should force the decision, according
to the EEBD, by sheer energy potential and, thus, rule behavior. "Run across the
street" would be blocked by "avoid getting run over by a truck." All other "run
and hide" plans would compete unopposed. The "yummy, ice-cream" value would be
a faint echo in the maelstrom. As a result, the nearest protection from a storm,
as long as it is not across the street, would likely carry the decision. If no
place with cover is available, then waiting for the truck to pass and then dashing
across the street into the ice cream store might be the most powerful plan.
Hopefully, the above scenario will be familiar to all who have tried
to cross a street in a thunderstorm but waited for traffic to pass or hid in a
nearby store doorway until the storm passed. Significantly, this scenario was
a conditional plan, too, in that full execution might require waiting upon an event
(the truck passing). Even more important, the plan incorporates the processing
results of two or more workspaces - the seeing (visual) and hearing (auditory)
workspaces at least. If the hearing workspace took control without regard to the
visual workspace, the person might run in front of the on-coming truck and, perhaps,
be killed. From this, we may deduce that some coordinating part of the brain exists
wherein the processing of all workspaces can be tapped and engineered into a
coordinated plan of action. This function is likely what Baars refers to as the
"Director." The director responds to the emotional values competing in the workspaces
and directs which ideas are to be thrust into the spotlight, and which ones
are to be driven offstage:
"Different goals may try to become conscious in a dynamic
game of king of the hill ... The spotlight selects the
most important events on stage, which are then distributed
to an audience consisting of all the unconscious routines
and knowledge sources ... The prioritizing function indicates
that sources that are more important will come to the conscious
bright spot onstage more easily and more often, thereby allowing
increased access to the audience and to contextual operators
behind the scenes."
(Baars, 1997, p. 47, 162).
The "contextual operators" also nicely relate to Antonio Damasio's
"second-order neural patterns." These second order structures "...
introduce the image resulting from the neural pattern in the overall flow
of images we call thought ..."
(Damasio, 1999, p. 177).
All of these phenomena underscore the presence of some
underlying processes supporting and creating our conscious visual
experience. It is these supporting processes that are among Baars'
contextual operators - the stagehands. Though pictures change on the
visual screen of our conscious minds, evidence points to the actual
processing, the actual thinking, as being below consciousness. Again,
as G.A. Miller stated:
"Consciousness gives no clue as to where the answer comes from; the
processes that produce it are unconscious. It is (the) result
of thinking, not the process of thinking, that appears spontaneously
in consciousness."
(Miller, 1962, p. 56).
HABITS & BEHAVIORAL OPTIMIZATION
Baars' "contextual operators" seem to have an additional function
as well. Through consciousness, we observe, learn, and act. Yet, once learned
"consciously," many mental activities seem to fall outside of conscious
control. Even so, we can still choose to enact these skills. We also
choose when to stop them. We typically call these "skills" or "habits."
Let me take you into the mind of a musician for a moment in
order to further reveal these semi-conscious processes. Years ago I
learned to play the guitar, and I particularly enjoyed "finger-picking"
and "flat-picking." Both styles involved fast finger movements plucking
individual strings of the guitar, and any sequence of plucked strings
was called either a "lick" or a "riff." As I got better and started
"trading licks" with other pickers, a familiar scenario repeated itself.
Someone would pick a tune, and I would ask to see it performed slowly
so that I could watch the "fretting" (finger placement along the guitar
neck) and copy the technique. Somewhere during the slowed version, the
picker would get lost and not know what note to pick next. Usually, he
would exclaim, "Just a moment - let me play it up to speed." The picker
would then pick the tune at a brisk tempo and carefully watch his fingers
to see what he did. He would then restart his slowed version and explain
his riff. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions with banjo
pickers, mandolin players, and guitarists. In fact, I have experienced
it myself quite a few times, so I know what is happening to them. At
those times, I literally watch my picking in order to relearn
"consciously" what "my fingers know." Believe me, it is quite eerie
to watch my fingers perform and be just as much a spectator as those
around me.
My ability to pick the guitar somehow had been stored outside
of my conscious control. This would be expected if conscious thought
was too cumbersome. Having learned picking by arduously locating
frets and meticulously placing individual fingers on the, I can attest
to how cumbersome the process would be if I continued to rely on all
of my conscious workspaces to play the guitar. Fortunately, the brain
tries to optimize frequently used sequences of behaviors. Once optimized,
behaviors appear to be, at least in part, "subconscious." We sometimes
refer to such optimized behavior as "habit."
How about truly great musicians or sports stars? While performing,
do these standouts think verbally to direct their arms and legs, hands
and fingers? How about yourself, if you type in your work, do you
verbally guide your fingers to each key before striking it? When you
write your name, though you may pronounce it in your mind, do you
verbalize all of the loops and lines you draw for each letter? In
other words, do you have to remind yourself to "make a small loop for
an 'e'" or to "cross the 't'" or to "capitalize the first letter"?
Hopefully, no. These actions have been repeated so often that they
are deeply ingrained and virtually automatic. They are fast, easy,
and efficient habits.
The survival advantages of optimized skills (habits) are obvious.
A newborn animal such as an antelope or a duck cannot maneuver well just
after birth. Only after growing and practicing does the animal become
adept at running or flying. Part of becoming adept is becoming quick
to enact survival behaviors. Optimized behavior - skills and habits -
improves quickness and the likelihood of survival. As such, it must be
naturally selected.
RISK ANALYSIS & DECISION MAKING
The human mind is capable of multiple semi-independent
functions. We can plan, observe, act, and learn. The mind also
has depth with some behaviors coming from below consciousness.
Habits may be a transitional state between consciousness and
subconsciousness, or they may be fully across the line of separation.
Other behaviors lie even deeper and are far removed from conscious
control such as the processes which compensate for the retinal blind
spot.
Since most decisions are not "life and death situations," the
strength of feelings associated with them are usually not strong. Even
critical factors such as breathing air, if access to it is unimpeded,
then it will not raise great emotion. As a result, most decisions are
seemingly "no-brainers," and feelings associated with them are
frequently imperceptible. We tend to live life mostly at "cruising
speed," and the emotional "thunder" rolls only when two or more strong
values are pitted against each other - perhaps during a family dispute
or when a fire or flood endangers a home. When you experience these
situations, the higher the risk, the higher the emotive response. Smaller
risks and challenges hold no such emotion. Finding a hole in your sock
is rarely associated with great anguish. Choosing whether or not to eat
a salad is, typically, devoid of great emotional strength.
Even so, if you do not believe you have any emotion regarding a
decision, ask yourself two questions. First, did you expend any resources
(time, effort, or money) to do or achieve something? Second, was your
action challenged (impeded or obstructed) by some person or anything else?
If you are not "goal" directed (trying to do or achieve something), or if
you easily achieve your goal without interference or obstruction, then
little emotive energy is mounted, and little emotion is generated. A
good example is reaching for a pencil. If it is handy and nothing
obstructs your reaching for it, you do it without any apparent emotion
(or change in emotion).
Frequently, decisions are not as easy as reaching for a pencil. Much
more difficult may be deciding to take a new job in a distant part of the
country. A new job may offer more money (a good feeling). It may also
be in a beautiful location (another good feeling). On the down side, it
likely requires a tedious move (packing and boxing). Worse, from the
viewpoint of a homeowner, the old home may not sell (a bad feeling).
Children will need to find new friends and their placement in school may
be disrupted (more bad feelings). In this scenario, we have two "good" things
and three "bad" things. Many of us call these "pros" and "cons." It
is these bad things or "cons" which pose risk to us and only after
"weighing" these in our minds against the positive factors can we
eventually come up with a decision. If the "pros" are greater than
the "cons," we will seek the positives despite the risks. If the
"cons" are stronger, then we will avoid the risks and, thereby,
sacrifice the potential gains. This is the essence of risk analysis
in our decision process.
If we ascribe some numbers to the above example and plot it on
the Want Line and Action Curve, "more money" would sit on the positive
half of the Want Line and, perhaps, have an Action Curve limit of
"51." Let's also place the "new location" in the upper half with a
weighted limit of "23." For the negative values, the change in schools
might be "-37," and not selling your house might be "-48" on the Action
Curve. Tedious packin will be a "-10." Though "more money" has the
highest weight of all of the values, the two positive values combine
with only a weight of "74" while the three negative values combine with
a significantly larger "95" weight. For the decision "to move or not,"
all values must be weighed together. Selling a house, disrupting schooling,
getting more money, packing, and moving to a new location will all occur
and must be packaged together. The decision would not be made on one or
two factors alone. Looking at the "packaged deal," the combined
negative values (95) have a greater weight and should overpower the
combined positive ones (74). Since the negative values invigorate
avoidance behaviors, the new job would be "avoided," and the decision
would be to "not take the new job." However, if the new company guarantees
the sale of the home, then the "48" power from the "con" side will be
matched by an equal "quarantee" on the "pro" side, and the positives
will prevail - "122" to "95." With this change in factors, the
decision will be to take the new job. Of course, changing the "weighting"
of any values could change the decision. Should the children become
incredibly upset, the "-37" for a school change might drop to "-100"
and completely alter the picture and the decision.
Let's go for another example - a real unemotional one. When
dressing in the morning, does it matter whether you put on a pair
of shorts before putting on a T-shirt? Probably not. Do you care
one way or the other? Again, probably not. However, when wearing
a T-shirt and shorts, you inevitably choose to put one on before the
other, and a decision HAS been made. Emotive Energy declares
that efficiency is naturally selected, and any behavior which is
efficient will be empowered a little more in a competition. Since
we seek efficiency, it must carry a positive weight. If, at the
time of your decision, "put on shorts" and "put on shirt" are of
equal value (weight), then the more efficient one would gain a
slight boost and carry the decision. Of course, other factors,
such as habit, could sway the decision as well. Even happenstance
could sway the decision such as putting on the first one found.
Searching for anything takes thought and energy, so the value of
both "put on shirt" and "put on shorts" includes an overhead cost
of "search for it." Once an item is found, it no longer is burdened
by the "search" cost and should overpower the other apparel item.
Of course, "color coordinating" and dressing regimen may also
influence what is worn first, but regardless of the factor(s),
the resultant influence is a change in the positive or negative
weights competing in a decision. Ever so slight as it may be,
some factor creates a difference in value between the shirt and
shorts and drives the selection of behavior.
It is through our ability to combine and weigh "pros and cons"
that we are able to make complex decisions. By virtue of the net
positive or negative weight of all values included in a decision, we
either seek or avoid a situation. Factors without a value, without an
emotional weight are ignored. We either seek a salad, avoid it or
ignore it. We either seek a pencil, avoid it, or ignore it. We either
seek a new job, avoid it, or ignore it. We either seek to put on shorts
first, avoid them, or ignore them and seek something else instead. This
method of comparison, which is essentially neural competitions, is the
basis of all thoughts. Rarely do we face "unbundled" choices in life.
Each one has "pluses and minuses," "pros and cons," "good things and bad
things." It is by bundling all advantages and disadvantages in a decision
that we come up with a composite "hedonic tone" or "somatic marker" which
is either positive, negative, or neutral. When we have multiple alternatives,
such as the "new job" (our earlier example) with no guarantee of the present
home versus the "new job" with a company guarantee of home sale, we
are now deciding between two bundled alternatives. As expressed above,
if no guarantee is included, the new job is avoided. If a guarantee
is included, the new job is sought. When a decision must be made between
multiple alternatives, we compare one bundled choice against another,
and the bundled choice of highest composite value will overpower
its competitors to take control of behavior.
As an aside, some may attribute higher intelligence to the ability
to handle complex decisions with many dependecies. However, I believe
this may be an ill-formed conclusion. Time is always an important factor
in a decision, and thinking (especially complex thinking) is a time-intensive
endeavor. The ability to deal with complexity, though certainly of some
measure of intelligence, may be more reflective of a lifestyle. For instance,
social dynamics are fast and fluid where little time is available for analysis
and planning. To use a methodical decision-tree approach for choosing a
"snappy comeback" remark during a conversation is hopeless. However,
someone intent upon being popular may use a "trial and error" approach
to create a reactive style which is adept at creating witty remarks. As
successes increase, the style is honed and reinforced until it becomes
an effective tool within social settings. Such an individual will,
thus, become socially adept and "socially intelligent" without using
a complex decision-tree approach. (Albeit, the underlying subconscious
behaviors may incorporate a complex decision-tree structure which is
optimized for speed and exists below conscious control.) Imbued with
such social intelligence, an individual may excel in social endeavors
like sales while doing poorly in methodical areas like "rocket
science." Meanwhile, a rocket scientist may do well in methodical
intelligence but do poorly in sales. Consequently, the ability to
deal with complex decision trees should not be the sole criterion of
intelligence. The ability to react quickly and adroitly to fluid and
fast moving situations should also be acknowledged as a display of
intelligence. Both social and methodical intelligence are successful
within our environment, and neither should be deemed better than the
other. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and a strong society should
foster the growth of both.
REALITY EMPOWERMENT
Let's add one more qualifier before we go on. At times, even
though we make a decision, something or someone prevents us from
enacting it immediately. For instance, you may decide to buy a new
home, but until your present home sells, you may not be able to afford
a new one. In the "truck, thunder, ice cream" scenario, waiting for
the truck to pass was required before crossing the street. Frequently,
reality prevents us from enacting decisions until a certain situation
exists. Until that circumstance comes into being, we are "reality
inhibited." Until food is found, eating is reality inhibited. Until
a snorkler rises to the surface of the ocean, breathing is reality
inhibited. Once the prerequisite circumstance occurs, the behavior
becomes "reality enabled" and can proceed. I term this "reality
empowerment," and it is much akin to Sigmund Freud's "reality principle"
which stipulates that we must satisfy "... demands realistically, yielding
to and accounting for the demands of reality."
(Buskist and Gerbing, 1990, p. 507).
DECISIONS AS SURVIVAL OF THE "BEST FIT"
If we must wait for the right opportunity to enact behavior, then
I suggest that a behavior must "fit" the circumstances before it is
enacted. Additionally, if the most powerful of competing behaviors
will overtake competitors to drive behavior, then it must also be the
most "fit" in terms of "physical strength." Therefore, for an outward
behavior to take place, it must logically fit the environmental circumstances,
and it must be more physically fit than its competitors. In other
words, using Herbert Spencer's terminology, the design of the decision
process is "survival of the fittest." That which best fits the
environment and is more powerful than its competitors, survives and exerts
its influence upon the world. No matter how you describe a decision, whether
based upon "gut feel," hunch, weighing advantages and disadvantages,
following tradition or habit, or letting others choose for you, each
can fall within this "survival of the fittest" explanation. Thus,
decisions can be simple gut reactions or bundled decision-tree structures
with overall gut reactions. But for any alternative to translate into
behavior, it must be stronger than other alternatives, and it must fit
the circumstances of the environment.
