Another week, another issue of my new Psych Psundays series. A few responses I got to last week’s issue:
#1. “Pswell pstuff, John!”
#2. “This felt very personal…”
#3. “Hi John, the Psych Psunday series is fantastic. I had already read about Daniel Kinahan and his father because I’m a big fan of investigative journalism and books written by former police officers, journalists, and prosecutors who fight these criminals. I agree with everything you wrote.”
That’s encouragement enough for me. So let’s mush on.
This morning I listened to an interview with Jason Stacy, who is the performance coach of Aryna Sabalenka, the current no. 1 female tennis player in the world.
Stacy took some audience questions. One woman, very blonde and with very white teeth, asked:
“My question is, when your body is tired, but your goal is bigger than your comfort, what is the mental switch that elite athletes use to keep going?”
What caught my attention is the use of the word “switch.” It’s such an innocent-sounding word, but it exposes the prevalent metaphor we use to think about the brain, which I claim is neither useful nor pleasant.
That unpleasant and unuseful metaphor is that the brain is a machine, or more specifically a computer, or more specifically still, a buggy computer.
I don’t know exactly where this metaphor comes from.
A bit of research today told me that people have been comparing the brain to the new technology of the time for centuries.
In the age of mechanical automatons, Descartes wrote that the brain is like a hydraulic machine.
In the age of electricity, the brain was compared to a telegraph relay.
In the age of computers, John Von Neumann wrote The Computer And The Brain, about the similarities and the differences between brains and computers.
Now, in the age of big data, brains have been metaphorically reduced to “prediction machines.”
The problem is, at the same time, we’ve had people like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky doing research on just how good humans are as prediction machines.
The result of Kahneman and Tversky’s research is prospect theory, which says that predictions or statistical evaluations done by human brains are consistently and predictably wrong.
In this view, human brains are prediction machines that aren’t all that good, or like I said earlier, they are buggy computers.
It’s not a not a very pleasant way to look at yourself.
What about useful?
Jason Stacy, Aryna Sabalenka’s performance coach, answered the very blonde, very white-toothed woman’s question about the one mental switch of elite athletes with a chuckle and a shrug. He said, “There’s a problem in the world these days where everyone is waiting to feel good to do something versus doing something to feel good.”
Stacy’s advice was to take action, consistently, even if it’s the smallest, most miserable bit of action at the start.
In other words, here’s a performance coach, in an actual measurable and competitive field, coaching at the very highest level, telling you that the “mental switch” ain’t really there to be flipped, and that what you really need to do is to grow and adapt over time.
For the purposes of this email, that’s all the proof I need to tell you that computer metaphor of the brain is not only not pleasant, but it’s also not useful.
But we all crave understanding and we crave simplicity. If the brain is not a computer, even a buggy computer, then what is it? Or at least, how can we think about it in a pleasant and even useful way?
For that, I would like to point you to a book I read last year.
This book doesn’t explicitly spell out a metaphor for the brain, but it makes the case, through various fascinating case studies, that the brain is — shockingly — not a machine but a living thing, an organ or perhaps an organism, like a tree or a climbing vine.
There are no switches to be flipped inside.
But over time, the brain grows and adapts to its environment, in alignment with its goals and the constraints put on it. Also, unlike a machine, which comes pretty much finalized out of the factory, the brain is capable of growing and adapting throughout its life.
Maybe I’m not selling the book well or this metaphor of “the brain as a climbing vine.” I won’t try to sell either any better right now.
All I will tell you is this book is one of the most influential books I’ve read over the past few years because it’s 1) fun, 2) inspiring, and 3) practical. And the idea of the brain as being a living and adaptable thing, rather than a buggy computer, is much more pleasant and more useful to me personally.
If you’re interested in psychology and neurology, and if you want some practical and inspiring takeaways, I highly recommend this:
https://bejakovic.com/doidge