Great post. I hadn't heard of the triple network model. Definitely fascinating, and as you point out it maps pretty well to Kahneman's System 1 and System 2.
Of course as you may know I'm more interested in how these models might end up being ill adapted for a post-internet world where they're constantly in contact with a new gigantic, strange, and artificial brain. McGilchrist's primary argument is that while the right hemisphere should be making the call, the left hemisphere has taken over (though he would date this usurpation to many decades before the internet.) What do other models lead you to believe?
It seems we have one of three possibilities:
1- Modern information technology has improved the brain: Perhaps in some ways, but given that we are adapted to completely different environment, it seems unlikely that we would get a net benefit.
2- Modern infotech does nothing to the brain: Perhaps we're just so resilient that we can take whatever gets throw at us and remain unscathed. Certainly Haidt would disagree with this point, and he does seem to have a pretty good argument.
3- Modern infotech does not play well with the brain and it's messing us up. This is McGilchrist's argument, and Haidt's and many others.
What are your thoughts on which of the three it ends up being, and how the different models you've presented might do a better job of illuminating whether infotech is beneficial or not?
Great question! I definitely think modern life rewards people who have well-developed executive control. I also think our social modelling (which I associate with the PFC part of the DMN) gets confused/maladapted due to overexposure to strangers.
One thing that is quite complicated is the relationship to our modern info-env and our reward networks. It's pretty clear that modern distractions are far more effective than previous iterations. But what about the relationship between risk-taking and potential rewards? It seems people are more risk-averse today (especially when it comes to our tolerance for physical violence). At the same time, rewards for taking big financial risks can have huge payoffs. Yet on another level the genetic payoff (e.g., number of children) that insanely rich people have isn't that much more than average.
At the end of the day, I lean toward 3 with the caveat that this is mediated by culture. If we consciously adapt and embrace modern challenges we will see some benefits (i.e., option 1).
Thanks! There are some great suggestions here. One difficult thing to balance is accepting/investing in your own innate tendencies (dharma?) vs trying to change or manage them.
A number of years ago I was reading something by Ray Dalio and he claimed that people get what they seek. I periodically come back to that claim to assess whether I believe it.
So, for example, I used to be a teacher and many students ‘wanted’ to learn math but many of them seemed to have adverse reactions to it, like their brain didn’t really want to do symbolic processing and tended to find other distractions.
Maybe it just goes back to the famous serenity prayer that we accept the things we cannot change and change the things we cannot accept.
My equivalent to your students’ math is sales. It was so against my innate tendencies yet I had to do it to survive in business. Sales is a valuable skill and I’m glad I learned it a bit and I can now work better with salespeople, but it is clear that it is not the game I’m supposed to be playing. So there is some value to using your brain for things it does not seem to be made for.
Great post. I hadn't heard of the triple network model. Definitely fascinating, and as you point out it maps pretty well to Kahneman's System 1 and System 2.
Of course as you may know I'm more interested in how these models might end up being ill adapted for a post-internet world where they're constantly in contact with a new gigantic, strange, and artificial brain. McGilchrist's primary argument is that while the right hemisphere should be making the call, the left hemisphere has taken over (though he would date this usurpation to many decades before the internet.) What do other models lead you to believe?
It seems we have one of three possibilities:
1- Modern information technology has improved the brain: Perhaps in some ways, but given that we are adapted to completely different environment, it seems unlikely that we would get a net benefit.
2- Modern infotech does nothing to the brain: Perhaps we're just so resilient that we can take whatever gets throw at us and remain unscathed. Certainly Haidt would disagree with this point, and he does seem to have a pretty good argument.
3- Modern infotech does not play well with the brain and it's messing us up. This is McGilchrist's argument, and Haidt's and many others.
What are your thoughts on which of the three it ends up being, and how the different models you've presented might do a better job of illuminating whether infotech is beneficial or not?
Great question! I definitely think modern life rewards people who have well-developed executive control. I also think our social modelling (which I associate with the PFC part of the DMN) gets confused/maladapted due to overexposure to strangers.
One thing that is quite complicated is the relationship to our modern info-env and our reward networks. It's pretty clear that modern distractions are far more effective than previous iterations. But what about the relationship between risk-taking and potential rewards? It seems people are more risk-averse today (especially when it comes to our tolerance for physical violence). At the same time, rewards for taking big financial risks can have huge payoffs. Yet on another level the genetic payoff (e.g., number of children) that insanely rich people have isn't that much more than average.
At the end of the day, I lean toward 3 with the caveat that this is mediated by culture. If we consciously adapt and embrace modern challenges we will see some benefits (i.e., option 1).
Nice! Let me throw in one more model. I found this extremely helpful, particularly in making sense of some of my default settings https://medium.com/life-tactics/14-tools-for-better-work-and-relationships-from-the-neuroscience-of-emotions-210de40ebebe
Thanks! There are some great suggestions here. One difficult thing to balance is accepting/investing in your own innate tendencies (dharma?) vs trying to change or manage them.
A number of years ago I was reading something by Ray Dalio and he claimed that people get what they seek. I periodically come back to that claim to assess whether I believe it.
So, for example, I used to be a teacher and many students ‘wanted’ to learn math but many of them seemed to have adverse reactions to it, like their brain didn’t really want to do symbolic processing and tended to find other distractions.
Maybe it just goes back to the famous serenity prayer that we accept the things we cannot change and change the things we cannot accept.
My equivalent to your students’ math is sales. It was so against my innate tendencies yet I had to do it to survive in business. Sales is a valuable skill and I’m glad I learned it a bit and I can now work better with salespeople, but it is clear that it is not the game I’m supposed to be playing. So there is some value to using your brain for things it does not seem to be made for.