Brain computing errors — II
In businesses, relationships, we make mistakes very often, even when we have the right information. This is because sometimes we don’t consider new information that comes to us and we stick to the existing mental model. What is obvious fact to others is opaque to us.
Why do we commit such mistakes?
Neurons don’t make mistakes; but mental models do.
I will try to explain the phenomenon and the above statement with an example, a personal observation.
Usually, I keep snack packets in a bag and hang it. In the evening, I pulled out a snack packet from the side of the bag facing me. I had earlier torn it open just sometime back and hence this time I tried to take out a handful of peanuts. To my surprise, the packet was fully closed. Then I checked it closely and I realized it was not the same packet. Someone else might have kept a new packet.
In hindsight, I recollected that I saw yellow colour chips when I took out the packet.
But these neuron signals which carried the chips information was not processed because it didn’t fit the mental model at that instant (the mental model was opened peanut packet on the side of the bag).
The brain didn’t accept the new information (potato chips packet), even though the neurons carried the signals correctly.
The brain corrected the mental model only when it could not open the packet.
There was a barrier (closed packet — hence no snack) that necessitated the correction in the model.
This is a trivial event with a time lapse of few seconds without any major risk.
But there are situations in business decisions, relationships, etc., when we fail to notice the new information and stick rigidly to the existing mental model. This may lead to business failures, breakdown of relationships.
Why don’t we correct as & when we receive right signals? Why do we need a shock to alter our mental models?
It appears the mental model is too inflexible to adapt to the obvious neuron signals that bring information as-is.
We may wonder that if the model were little more flexible, then life would be easier. Further, it will not be too difficult to break the model by electro-chemical forces (or any other forces).
I assume that this is by design that the model is inflexible.
In my opinion, inflexibility allows navigation through the realities (virtual) of life easier, without the call for the higher computational processes, which are inaccessible to consciousness.
In short, inflexibility brings stability and certainty. This type of error happens so often in our lives, that we notice them only if it results in a loss.
It is like cycling. If we become aware of each and every process (left leg on the pedal, right on the pedal, etc.), then the act of cycling will become tortuous and cycling will no longer be enjoyable.
So, the next time someone says that he didn’t notice something that was before his eyes, don’t blame the neurons. It is the mental model.
