Neuroscience, the Mind, and Self-Improvement

Source

It is his capacity for self-improvement and self-redemption which most distinguishes man from the mere brute.

- Aung San Suu Kyi

Neuroscience fascinates me. The brain is so mysterious and marvelous. One of the age-old questions posed by students of the mind is whether our consciousness and body are distinct entities or whether they are actually the same thing. Monism is probably the most popular school of thought today and holds that our consciousness is a phenomena arising solely from physical processes of our brain.[i] Through science, we now know that our very consciousness, our personality, memories, hopes, and fears are inextricably linked to the few pounds of biological tissue in our craniums. When our brain changes, so do we. However, too many smart people misinterpret this fact to mean that we are simply a product of our environments. That free will does not exist. And that there is nothing more to the world than the sub-atomic particles that make up the universe, as science understands it. The worst part about this misinterpretation is that people use it as an easy excuse. They say, “I just am who I am”; "I am simply a product of physics”; “I can’t help doing wrong”; “I can’t change”; “I can’t improve.” But, they are wrong. In this post, I intend to argue that, although it is tremendously difficult, we can improve who we are and that we are ethically obligated to make the effort.

Concluding that humans are automatons from our limited scientific observation is to prematurely jump to conclusions. It under-appreciates the experience of consciousness and our inherent capacity for self-improvement. The first question then is how can we square the scientific understanding that our physical brains control our mind with how we experience ourselves as rational, free, social, political, conscious, and ethical beings. I will not be able to address this in full (I don't know the answer); but my purpose in writing this post is to debunk people’s efforts to excuse poor performance, lack of improvement, and misdeeds by saying that they are merely a product of the physics or biology. People too often underestimate our ability to change for the better; they give up on themselves too quickly.

FREEDOM AND NEUROSCIENCE

I propose a sort of limited dualism wherein there are two realms of existence: physical and spiritual. On one level, they are all one kind of matter and I am making a false dichotomy; but, in another sense, they are separate. On Earth, we observe primarily the physical matter. Science does not yet comprehend the spiritual and how or how much it interacts with the physical. The belief that there are other kinds of matter we do not yet comprehend is not unprecedented. For the past few hundred years, science has discovered different kinds of matter and different subdivisions of matter. We learned that everything is made of atoms, then that atoms were made of subatomic particles. Then we learned that subatomic particles are composed of quarks, leptons and force carriers (but, what are quarks made of?). We have also discovered a matter that does not share space with us: anti-matter.  From observational evidence of gravity, we know that there is matter that we do not understand that accounts for much of the mass of the universe. In sum, we have not figured out the system of physics, matter, space, and time. I expect that there exists some other dimension of the system of physics that I will deem the spiritual.

In my experience, the most common objection to this view is that given the fact that physical neurobiology accounts for much of consciousness, Occam’s razor dictates monism. In essence, my opponents argue that I err in postulating another kind of matter when the physical world can be explained with reference only to the physical. But, I don’t think that the world can be explained merely through reference to the physical world. In short, I believe my opponents too easily discount epistemological experiences that have lead to my religious faith. Faith is inherently subjective. Unfortunately, I cannot share it; my consciousness is my own. I can only try to explain how I have come to faith through experience and study. I find, however, that many of my opponents actively avoid subjective evidence and value only objective evidence. They too quickly conclude that if something happens in their head, in their own subjective experience, it cannot be evidence.[ii]  It cannot be descriptive of reality. Subjective evidence or religious experience, for them, must be a false neuronal firing, cognitive bias, or a evolutionary glitch giving the illusion of purpose. I think these arguments have some merit; but not as much weight as my opponents give them. Despite the tendencies of the natural man, I feel that humility, self-awareness, and self-honesty can be more effective at diagnosing and evaluating our own knowledge than some people give credit. Sometimes, religious faith cannot be boiled down to a biologically-wired bias. Faith can be objectively rational and subjectively confirmed through so-called "supernatural" influences and self-realization.

Although we do not yet understand the neuronal basis for subjective consciousness, I expect it will be thoroughly tied to our physical brain. However, I don’t think we understand the implications of the matter making up our physical bodies and universe. Our consciousness and being somehow continue after death in a spiritual existence. The corruption of or physical bodies does not corrupt our spiritual bodies. Our experience in the physical world is recorded on physical and spiritual software, but it does not change the spiritual hardware. When we die, the recording stops (at least on the physical side). I think that, either occasionally or constantly in ways we do not yet understand, our being and experience in the spirit realm can affect our being and experience in the physical world. We may coin such influence supernatural because we do not yet understand it; but it is ultimately natural. I am not sure the extent to which this occurs and I don’t necessarily disagree that the system of physics is closed, but that my opponents too quickly draw the borders of the system too small. Like ancient cartographers who drew the edge of the world without including America, they draw the edge of the physics and neuroscience without including the spirit existence.

In essence, my reconciliation of the mind-body problem can be analogized to a sort of double-sided carbon paper (to a degree). Before photocopiers and computers, carbon paper was used to make copies of hand-written documents. On one side of the carbon paper was loosely bound dry ink or pigment. To make a copy, one would slip the leaf of carbon paper between two sheets of standard paper and, as he or she wrote on one, the pressure of the writing utensil on one side of the carbon paper would deposit the ink on the opposite sheet reproducing the original document. Similarly, my proposition here involves two kinds of matter. As we experience life on Earth it is simultaneously experienced in spirit although we only readily observe the former. And, I also believe that happenings in the spirit realm can affect the physical too.

Free will means different things to different people. I do not claim to know whether all of our volitions have predictable causes that are fixed in the past and outside ourselves (determinism) or whether some phenomenon within our beings gives flight to volition or can give flight to volition. Ultimately, I believe our minds are not magical, but comprehensible at least to God. Free will, for me, means choosing according to our fundamental preferences that are not compelled by ignorance, addiction, or other compulsion. True and full free will is only capable through knowledge and self-mastery.[iii] Human agency means more than a reaction to physical causes beginning at our birth. To say, as many philosophers do, that “we feel we are choosing, but we are not” without further elaboration is to misleadingly undervalue choice. At the very least, one must concede that our subjective consciousness cannot be reduced to objective neuronal firings. Whatever is happening, the experience of consciousness is special. It brings about a feeling and self-aware "I." Consciousness is inherently subjective and cannot be explained in 3rd person objective descriptions of neurological mechanics. We are not well served by smug self-satisfaction that comes from a disavowal of responsibility for our actions.  Even if choices are ultimately predetermined by the mechanics of the universe, the cause of our conduct is still within our being and responsibility will thus attach to us. 

NEUROSCIENCE OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT

Almost everything we do not only registers in our conscience, but physically changes our brain. This is what makes breaking bad habits so difficult. This is what makes building character and talents so demanding. Deciding to be better is not enough. It takes repetition and a network of supporting decisions to alter our neurobiology and truly change who we are. The more we make right choices, the better we become ethically and biologically. The more we cave to base temptations, the less good we become morally and physically. The brain is not static. It is more like a muscle. The more and the way we use different parts of our brain determines the physical structure of our brain. As we use our brain often and properly, it becomes more adept. If we do not use our brain or we use it the wrong way, it becomes less adept at doing good.

Some Examples:

(1) Drug addictions, pornography dependencies, overeating, and gambling dependencies have been shown to decrease the size of parts of the prefrontal cortex that correlate with self-mastery. The more we cave to yearnings for chemical pleasures from risk, lust, drugs, etc. the less our brains are equipped to deny short term pleasure for postponed, longer term, and greater pleasure.

(2) Taxi drivers have larger hippocampuses that play a role in navigation and memory.

(3) Violinists have a pronounced knob in their motor cortex for their left hand. Piano players have also been demonstrated to have an enlarged part of the brain dealing with finger coordination.

(4) The architecture of Albert Einstein’s brain had a unique parietal cortex that likely contributed to his ability to conceptualize and synthesize complex information.

The fact that our being is tied to our physical brain means that there is often an illusion of inability to change. But, change is, in fact, possible. The illusion of impossibility arises because even after we make the choice to change, temptations, tendencies, and lack of aptitude remain and only change after repetitive use of the brain in the right way. People too quickly discount preferences, tendencies, and personality traits as immutable after making a facial effort to change. Real change requires more than a single choice to change. It will frequently require a whole network of choices. The slow improvement of our physical brain, choice by choice, may involve more than any single and isolated choice. In other words, overcoming a bad habit may not be best accomplished by trying to force one’s self to affront and deny the temptation at issue. Similarly, will power alone might not be enough, in the beginning, to establish a new good habit. We have to make choices to alter our environments in such a way as to support our decision. Improvement and change has to come step by step. For example, it is probably not smart for a person addicted to tobacco to hang out with others who smoke, to see and smell tobacco. Rather, if the person is serious about quitting cigarettes, she is better served by making choices to alter her environment for a while to minimize the temptation. Eventually, her brain structure will change and the biological urge to smoke will diminish. Eventually, she may be able to see cigarettes and smell smoke and have the will power to say “no.” Another example of this principle comes from my experience in Paris. When I first began living in France, I was somewhat self-conscious about my ability to speak the language. A friend advised simply, “fake it until you make it.” I didn’t understand what he meant at first. However, by pretending I understood what I was hearing, by participating in conversations, I gave people the impression and permission to speak to me in French freely. And, people did speak to me more in French. Before I affected confidence, people would sense my nervousness or inabilities and would switch to speaking to me in English. Thus, making the decision to speak French, alone, wasn’t enough. I had to make a series of decisions, one of which was to pretend I spoke French better than I did. 

Whether the moving factor of free will lies within or without us we ultimately experience agency in a very real and subjective way. On some fundamental level, we can choose to improve. We have the tools inherently in us to improve. We can make choices that will alter the physical makeup of our brains to bring about improvement in our lives on a scale too often underestimated.  I am not asking for perfection. Just a resolution and commitment to build character and be better. To not live beneath the divinity within us. As we improve ourselves, society improves, and it becomes easier for others to improve their lives. Indeed, it is my conviction that we are not only able to fundamentally improve ourselves, we are ethically obligated. Improvement, I believe, is part of Deity's purpose for us and He has provided a way. I'll end it here with this thought, that we are capable of more change than we give ourselves credit for. Now, let's do some improving.

---

[i] The kind of monism I describe here is sometimes referred to as “materialism.” However, another sort of monism is known as idealism. Idealism holds that only the mind is real and is most closely associated with the philosophy of George Berkeley. Indeed, there is a third-view, the least popular, which holds that really all being can be reduced to one substance that is neither thought nor physical substance but something else, e.g an energy.

[ii] This reminds me of a conversation between Dumbledore and Harry Potter, which can be understood on at least a few levels, in J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: “Tell me one last thing, said Harry. Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head? Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
[iii] How would you choose if you had all the relevant information and mastery over cognitive biases? Such is a free choice according to my definition. 

Overvaluing Automatons: Workaholism or Hard Work?

"I did not want [my child] to end up like one of those weird Asian automatons who feel so much pressure . . . that they kill themselves after coming in second on the national civil service exam."

- Amy Chua, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

Hard work and workaholism are not the same thing. Hard work is a character strength. Workaholism implies poor priorities and an imbalanced life. And yet, Americans increasingly have to be more like workaholics than hard workers to attain the highest levels of success in this country. Although many businesses, hospitals, and professional firms promote work-life balance to attract and keep high quality employees, many still have corporate cultures that value very long hours and promote employees based almost entirely on productivity ($$ per person) without regard for other circumstances. Firms say and do two different things. They advertise that they value employees and then treat them as liabilities rather than assets. In fact, many of the most prestigious career fields in America require at least a few years of totally unbalanced devotion to work. To become a top lawyer, you have to put in backbreaking billable hours as a junior associate. Then, of those workaholics, only one in five makes partner: the one who puts in the most hours. To become a physician, you have to do a few years as a resident putting in 75-hour workweeks with a frenetic schedule and then you're on call (in 2003, OSHA adopted an 80-hour limitation with exceptions, how generous of them). To become a business executive, the standard path involves doing your time at a major consulting, accounting, or investment banking firm.  But, are these long hours really good for us? Or are these long-hour rites of passage really just chest pounding, bragging rights, proof of manhood? Workaholism is fostered early on too. Test scores at universities are based solely on productivity and are the greatest determinant of career opportunity. In the end, this is understandable right? Businesses are profit-maximizers and getting more work out of fewer people seems like it would cut costs and increase net income.

But, even if overworking employees does make for higher profits, isn't it the government's job to correct for the excesses of business' constant quest for profit? Shouldn't we have a system where those living a balanced lifestyle are rewarded? America lags far behind developed countries with regards to family-oriented workplace policies like maternity leave, support for working mothers, maximum working hours, and vacation time. On average, Americans work 30% more hours than Europeans, yet American and European workers are virtually equal in their productivity. Studies show that working more than 50 hours a week might increase productivity for some people, but only very marginally. In other words, if you are a workaholic, you might get the most done, but insignificantly in the big picture. The hours aren't worth the increase in productivity. Studies show that, on average, productivity after 50 hour of work in a week drops off precipitously. For example, Albert studies for 50 hours in a week and scores a 90% on his law school exam. Bertrand studies for 80 hours a week and scores a 95% on that same exam. Since most law schools have a mandatory curve, Albert gets a B+ and Bertrand gets an A. Now, in law school terms, the difference between a 3.3 (B+) GPA and a 3.7 (A-) GPA can be as much as $100,000 difference in salary. But, is that how it should work? Should we really value Bertrand's marginal increase in legal knowledge (that can be found with a click of a button) at $100k? While Bertrand was outlining campaign finance law in the library for 30 extra hours, Albert took his son fishing, his daughter to swimming lessons, went on a date with his wife, volunteered for the Special Olympics, went to the gym three times, read a book, took a nap, and helped a friend change his brake pads.  Who is really more productive? Who is more honorable? Who would you want as your leader?

The overworking of Americans has a number of negative effects on individuals and on society as a whole. 

Materialism: First, emphasis on long work hours puts a premium on money and devalues time (time with family, time with friends, time doing service, time on hobbies, etc). Hours worked per person in America has steadily increased since the late 1940s while salaries per hour worked have doubled since then when adjusted for inflation. In other words, Americans could work 4-hour days and have the same quality of life as they would have earned for themselves in an 8-hour work day in 1940. Commercialism has convinced too many Americans that stuff is more valuable than it really is.

Sleep: If you need an alarm clock, you are probably not getting enough sleep. Every year, the sleep deficit among American workers grows. Most Americans are getting over an hour less sleep than they should.

Experience: There is an argument that we are getting boring as we take less and less vacation and fewer and fewer hobbies. We aren't traveling as much for pleasure or learning. Jobs are requiring us to become increasingly specialized and job satisfaction declines with the diminished variety. We can't pursue hobbies or side-jobs anymore. There's not time to produce that great idea for an invention, write that book, or teach yourself to knit. We work, eat, sleep and repeat. We don't have time to meditate and think about life or to engage in meaningful conversation.

Health: Stress in American workers is measurably higher with each passing year. This contributes to a host of mental and physical health problems that are on the rise. The stress also has a negative effect on our relationships with others. We are less happy and more depressed than ever. In addition, long work schedules often make for more sedentary lifestyles that contribute to problems like, among others, obesity and cardiovascular complications.

Unemployment: Increasing hours for employees means less people get hired.

Family: This is the most unfortunate casualty of our overvaluation of long hours at work. I don't even know where to begin. Marriages are strained as husband and wife spend less time with one another and don't have time to complete household chores. Parents spend less time with kids. Kids are left home alone more and more. Even when a person has time for their spouse or children, fatigue usually makes that time less effective for bonding. Couples are putting off getting married or having kids until after school or after my first job or after whatever so that they can be more successful in their careers. I think this lack of love and spending time together leads to lower morals too. When we don't feel cared for, we generally hold ourselves to lower standards of conduct. Friends can be a strength, but family is where moral support most happens. Mothers should be able to put their families first and still become physicians, but the system does not allow it nor does the impossible ideal of "supermom" help the situation. It ignores the problem.

One way to deal with this problem would be to set a maximum work hour ceiling. Perhaps employers would be prohibited by statute to work their employees for more than an average of 60 hours a week over a ten week period. That isn't setting the ceiling too low. Or, perhaps tax incentives could be set up to encourage employers to work employees at reasonable hours and to make it not worth overworking employees. Perhaps a minimum vacation requirement of 14-days a year should be instituted. I would also like to see policy incentives for improved maternity leave and accommodations for mothers at work (e.g. breastfeeding breaks, mothers' rooms). 

As an aside, I prefer that protecting employee work-life balance is better accomplished by statutes than by empowering labor unions. Labor unions have a natural tendency to carry their fight for workers to excess just as unchecked businesses seem to go too far the other way. Can everyone agree that working more than 60-hour weeks with only one week of vacation time, and zero sick pay is inconsistent with a balanced life? In my opinion, the law could appropriately set some minimum standards through taxation or outright prohibitions.

Finally, I'd like to see education policy shift to better esteem students with balanced lives and talents that fit particular career fields rather than abstract academics only. Work-life balance is not so much a problem in public high schools where the homework load is relatively quite low; but in graduate professional schools it is certainly a problem. Slightest differences in capacity are blown out of proportion in assessments and in school's representations to employers of a student's worth. Perhaps simply measuring competency in individual subject areas and forcing employers to sift through potential employees would be a better system for many professional graduate schools. The current system seems to enable elitism too much as well. I'd also like to see alternatives to medical residencies or grueling junior associate rites of passage. Perhaps a 5-year residency at 40 hours a week rather than a 3-year residency at 75 hours per week. Maybe a 12-year partnership track rather than a 7-year track.

We don't want to become automatons that feel they have to sacrifice faith, family, friends, or service to become a law firm partner or a physician. For stronger families, happier citizens, and (yes) a stronger economy, we need to reward those who live balanced lives. 

Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome

There are two notions of equality that drive different political ideologies. The first is equality of opportunity. An equality of opportunity approach seeks to level the playing field by making the law apply equally to everyone. The second kind of equality is equality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes seeks to ensure that everyone ends up in the same conditions. The two are mutually exclusive to some degree as equality of opportunity implies certain inequality of outcome. Only equality of opportunity is consistent with pure liberty. But, what kind of “equality of opportunity” should we seek in America? And, is the line between the two as clear as one might like to think?

Let’s look at a case study of affirmative action. The issue is obviously complex and some oversimplification will unfortunately be necessary to fit this into a neat little blog post. Racial inequality is measurable by educational indicators, socio-economic circumstances, crime rates, single mothers, and by a number of other sociological gauges. To correct for these inequalities, various affirmative action policies have been put into effect. Affirmative action policies can perhaps be grouped into two primary types. First, there are systematic remedies that seek to level the playing field and make the rules apply to everyone the same. Secondly, there are redistributive policies that seek to open up new opportunities.

What would justify affirmative action? Presumably, most all affirmative action policies would be unjustifiable if racial inequality arises from (1) innate biological inferiority (overwhelming evidence refutes this notion entirely); (2) cultural pathologies that deemphasize hard work, education, etc (some empirical evidence supports this); or (3) voluntary choices to pursue the paths that they do (very unlikely). However, what affirmative action policies are justified if (a) discrimination and stereotypes play a role in keeping a race down (informal barriers) or (b) structural based obstacles like segregation or a lack of family connections work against a race (formal barriers)?

Even libertarians think that structural or systematic obstacles stemming from government’s duplicitous treatment of different races should be abolished. But, to the extent that discrimination (overt and unconscious) still exists, should quotas, recruiting campaigns, or employee support programs be provided to members of a disadvantaged race? Although express quotas in hiring and school admissions are prohibited by law, unspoken redistributions of opportunity in many careers and school admissions are measurable statistically and legal. So, should discrimination be remedied by redistributions of opportunities? Such an approach would be an equality of outcomes approach. 

Affirming a belief in equality of opportunity implies a belief that government should make sure everyone starts off in the same place, not that everyone ends up in the same condition. However, the issue is complicated by the fact that people aren’t born in the same place. Although we are all of equal value in the eyes of our Heavenly Father, some of us are born to poor parents, others to rich parents; some are born in the United States, others in Somalia; some to parents who love one another, others never know one of their parents; etc. The only way to get everyone started off equally would be to institute some Spartan program of community child-rearing and a total prohibition of any gifts whether given inter vivos or after death. However, that just seems inherently wrong and completely inconsistent with freedom.

Should we simply ignore birth inequalities? I am tempted to say that it is better to let mysterious fate distribute opportunity rather than the arbitrary or fleeting preferences of government. But, I don’t think such an extreme view is the only answer to this puzzle.

A certain degree of economic inequality is desirable. Inequality provides rewards for hard work, talent, and achievement. It provides lubricant for social enterprise and progress. However, when inequality becomes too great, it animates pride, exploitation, discontent, and rebellion that cause societal decline. When crafting solutions to inequality, government should not focus on where to strike a balance between inequality and equality. Rather, I think the focus should be on balancing economic mobility with the freedom to bequest good things to our loved ones. That isn’t very precise; but I don’t think precise is possible. The slightest possibility of reaching the top of the Forbes Richest People list in a single lifetime is all that is necessary for proper income mobility in my view. 

I am thus only in favor of redistributive policies to the extent that all people have the minimum necessities of education, food, shelter, medical care, and life guidance to change their own fortunes and achieve unlimited success with the probabilities of economic success (for full-time, committed individuals mid-career) being chartable on a bell curve. With a more virtuous society, the bell curve will shift towards the prosperous; with a society in moral decline will shift towards the poor. But, the possibility to succeed or to lose should always be present. Real freedom can only be present if we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

Given my acceptance of some forms of redistributive policies, it is worth mentioning that such policies have been egregiously mismanaged. First, the government not only redistributes things that are not the minimum necessities I described, but are actually detrimental to a disadvantaged person's chances of improving his or her situation. People don’t need a T.V. In fact, TVs do more damage than good. Somehow, people on government stipends for poverty, unemployment, etc afford televisions. People don’t need more bedrooms than there are people in their family; yet I see that in my service to those in government subsidized (or furnished) housing.  And, even the things government provides that people do need as minimum necessities are mismanaged on a large scale. Student loans are given in excessive amounts and without any risk assessment. Medicare pays for unnecessary stuff and pays more for the same services when compared to Veteran Affairs. Redundant programs (there are 23 agencies that provide independent and overlapping assistance to former USSR countries, 12 agencies that ensure food safety requirements are met, and the list goes on for a very long time) are the norm. The mismanagement of what should be proper government redistribution and regulation purposes cannot be understated.

I should also say that income mobility is not the most important thing in the world. Even people who end up not able to break through their birth social class can live joyful and meaningful lives. Indeed, the rich are often less happy, probably because they focus too much on money and too little on the more important things of life like faith, family, friends, and developing an honorable and virtuous character. Equality and freedom are instrumental in bringing forth a virtuous society. But, neither is the end in itself. Government policies should reflect that emphasis on virtuous living through freedom and equality rather than freedom and equality at the expense of virtue.