Archive for category Combative’s
Its been a while and I need to get back on this…. here is part 2… lets see if we cant get a few more up in the coming months.. plus an insight into my new book….
VIOLENCE IT’S NATURAL LET IT BE.. Part 2
Yochelson and Samenow (2013)
A study of thinking patterns in criminals.
Aim: To understand the make up of the criminal personality.
Design: A longitudinal study using interviews that spanned over a 14 year period. The interviews were based on Freudian therapy techniques, which aimed to identify the root cause of the criminal behaviour.
Sample: 255 males from various backgrounds who had been found guilty by reasons of insanity and secured in a mental institution. Only 30 of the participants completed the interviews, and only 9 made any significant progress towards rehabilitation. Findings: Identified 52 thinking patterns that were common in the criminals.
External attribution they viewed themselves as the victim and blamed others for the situation. Lack of interest in responsible behaviour sees it as pointless. Closed thinking not receptive to criticism.
Conclusion: These ‘errors’ in thinking are not unique to criminals, but were suggested to be displayed more by criminals than law behaving citizens. They also put forward the theory of free will to explain criminal behaviour. This has five points to it:
- The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their decisions.
- Criminals think and act differently than other people, even from a very young age.
- Criminals are, by nature, irresponsible, impulsive, self-centered, and driven by fear and anger.
- Deterministic explanations of crime result from believing the criminal who is seeking sympathy.
- Crime occurs because the criminal wills it or chooses it, and it is this choice they make that rehabilitation must deal with.
Does the criminal mind of one parent transfer via inheritance to the mind of their offspring? This has been a question that scientists and researchers have attempted to answer for quite some time now and the above does not really point us in a direction that one can be confident in!
The Construct We Call The Mind.
“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.
“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”
“And he has Brain.”
“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”
There was a long silence.
“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”
A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh
To date the brain and it’s functioning process are still the subject of large amounts of research and, according to a popular myth, we only use 10% of its capacity! Wikipedia (2014) ‘the 10% of brain myth is the widely perpetuated urban legend that most, or all, humans only make use of 3%, 10% or some other small percentage of their brains. It has been misattributed to people including Albert Einstein.
By association, it is suggested that a person may harness this unused potential and increase intelligence. Though factors of intelligence can increase with training, the popular notion that large parts of the brain remain unused, and could subsequently be “activated”, rest more in popular folklore than scientific theory. Though mysteries regarding brain function remain e.g. memory, consciousness etc, the physiology of brain mapping suggests that most, if not all, areas of the brain have a function’.
The mind of humans is very closely related in structure and in some ways function to that of the ‘Rat’. Research by Smith and Alloway (2013) at the Penn State Centre for Neural Engineering and affiliates of the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, detail their discovery of a parallel between the motor cortices of rats and humans that signifies a greater relevance of the rat model to studies of the human brain than scientists had previously known. “The motor cortex in primates is subdivided into multiple regions, each of which receives unique input that allow it to perform a specific motor function”
In the rat brain, the motor cortex is small and it appeared that all of it received the same type of input. We know now that sensory input to the rat motor cortex terminate in a small region of the motor cortex that is distinct from the larger region that issues the motor commands. Our work demonstrates that the rat motor cortex is parcellated into distinct sub regions that perform specific functions, and this result appears to be similar to what is seen in the primate brain.”
“You have to take into account the animal’s natural behaviours to best understand how its brain is structured for sensory and motor processing,”. For primates like us, that means a strong reliance on visual information from the eyes, but for rats it’s more about the somatosensory input from their whiskers.” In fact, nearly a third of the rat’s sensory motor cortex is devoted to processing whisker related information, even though the whiskers occupy only one third of one percent of the rats total body surface. In humans, nearly 40 percent of the entire cortex is devoted to processing visual information, although the eyes occupy a very tiny portion of our body’s surface. It certainly seems from this research that the cortical mapping that occurs in the brain of a human is very similar to that of a rat; the big difference is the inflated size of our cerebral cortex.
Primitive neuro anatomy of the brain include impulses of rage and fear, that are balanced by the operating functions of the orbital cortex, which is responsible for emotional controls, that we know as moralization and self-control. The brain is certainly complex. However, the boundaries of its operations are slowly beginning to fail, not least due to the unfortunate circumstances some individuals have had to endure when accidental damage occurs to regions of their brain.
Pinker (2012) recounts an unfortunate accident that happened to a man called Fineus Gage, a railway foreman responsible for dynamite placement, he tapped down some blasting powder in a hole in a rock, setting off a premature explosion that sent the blasting iron up through his cheekbone and out the top of his skull. A 20th century computer reconstruction of the damage to the brain based on the holes in the skull, suggest that the rod tore up his left orbital cortex, along with the ventral medial cortex on the inside wall of the cerebrum.
Gage’s sensory, memory and movement were still available to him, although something about him had changed, he was no longer the same person, the damage that had occurred had caused an effect that was not just the loss of a capability that was controlled by the brain, this was more a change in his animal like behaviour.
Pinker quotes his doctor at the time saying “he is now fitful, uses the grosses of profanities, does not care about his friends, is persistently obstinate, plans future actions which are quickly abandoned, a child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, yet has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury he possessed a well-balanced mind and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in carrying out all his plans. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so much so that his friends would say, that he is no longer Gage”
This type of evidence points towards clues that the brain and the control of emotions are closely linked and interactive with each other, some parts responsible for holding other parts in check.
This leads to an understanding that the human brain has been wired for violence, it is not a random development and in our evolutionary past, it was required as part of human nature to ensure survival, by the use of predation, dominance and vengeance. We must also not forget that humans have a great capacity for self-control, seeking peace or loving thy neighbour. However it is these acts of violence that are really nothing other than a means to strip resources from another individual that we now term as criminality.
One particular region of the human brain that contains several different areas all linked together, and is believed to be responsible for violent acts, is a region called ‘the rage circuit’ The neuro scientist Yank Punck Cept describes what happens when he sent an electrical magnetic current through a part of the rage circuit of a cat! “Within the first few seconds of the electrical brain stimulation, the peaceful animal was emotionally transformed, it leapt viciously toward me with claws unsheathed, fangs barred, hissing and spitting. It could have pounced in many different directions, but its arousal was directed right at my head, fortunately a plexie glass wall separated me from the enraged beast.
Within a fraction of a minute after terminating the stimulation the cat was again relaxed and peaceful and could be petted without further retribution’. This rage circuit in the cat brain has a corresponding counterpart in the human brain cited by Pinker (2012) This region in our own brain, can also be stimulated in the same manner as the cat, eliciting emotionally enraged responses, the only difference is that the cat hisses whereas humans have a propensity to use in appropriate language and violence.
One of the distinct differences in violent behaviour is between violence that is being used for dominance and violence used for predation. Observe two cats who find themselves faced off against each other, their hair stands on end, they assume a hunched and erect posture and all manner of cat noises emanate from within, so much so that when some humans use noise as a means of posturing, we find the term ‘cat fight’. Yet when the same cat comes upon a mouse or bird the behaviour is markedly different, now the cat is silent, determined and single mindedly focused on taking the life of the poor creature in its path.
Humans display the same behavioural patterns, these are evidenced in the typical Saturday night encounter when two males face off against each other. They inflate their chest, clench their fists, use language that threatens and insults the other party, however in the majority of cases even when fights start they are usually all blown out very quickly, they may have a few bruises and maybe a bone or two broken but there is, in the majority of incidents, no lasting trauma and unless they are very unfortunate to sustain a fall, and strike their head in just the right place with just the right amount of force, then death will not occur. When a tool such as a blade is involved the percentages rise sharply in favour of death.
However, we also have the capacity for predation, which unveils itself in our ugly capacity to take the life of another human in such a manner as to cause disgust and outrage. We can stalk other individuals and subject them to all manner of depraved acts eventually taking their lives. Cannibalism is also evident in some tribes and was more commonplace in our history than many would like to admit.
Humans also have the capacity to switch from passive ‘I love the world and everyone in it’ to ‘temper enraged maniacs’ at the switch of a button. This behaviour is exactly like the electrically induced rage of the poor cat above. Then we have times when humans are out for revenge, during these times a cool calculating persona can be seen, stalking their prey and preparing for the sweet taste of payback, usually a blade or a gun in some parts of the world are used in a cold manner where death is a high probability. No words are used and the silent determination is like evil unleashed.
A good friend of mine was returning home one night when he came upon a group of young lads bulling another, he intervened, trying to calm the situation, the next thing he knew and remembers was one of them repeatedly striking him, he soon went down as a result of multiple stab wounds. One thing that sticks in his mind was the coldness of his attacker executing his assault in complete silence with the rage of a person possessed.
Scientists have been able to insert their electrodes into different rage circuits within the brain of a cat to elicit either hunting or attack mode behaviour Pinker (2012). It is therefore no great leap to see that humans have the same rage circuits within their brains and that different stimuli will bring forth the same behaviour patterns that the majority of our animal relatives also exhibit.
The rage circuit that is responsible for producing emotional responses that are linked to aggression, hunting and attacking can have very subtle effects that at first look the same. These circuits are organized in a hierarchy which emanate from the ‘hind brain’ where neuro mapping controls the muscles and behaviour actions of the animal. The hind brain is positioned on top of the spinal cord. However, the circuits that control these rage centres are situated higher up in the mid and fore brain. When the hindbrain of a cat is stimulated by electrical impulses the resulting rage is known by neuroscientists as ‘sham rage’ the cat hisses, bristles and extends its fangs, but all the time can be petted and stroked without fear that the individual will be attacked.
If the rage circuit higher up is stimulated, then the resulting emotional effect is much more significant, the cat becomes as mad as hell and instantly attacks the head of the nearest person.
Evolution has, over time, taken advantage of these different modes of reactions, animals use different body parts as offensive weapons, including, jaws, fangs, and antlers, with primate’s hands and feet. The hindbrain circuits that drive these peripheral actions can be reprogrammed or swapped out as a lineage evolves. The central programs that control an animals emotional state are remarkably conserved, including the lineage that leads to humans.
Neuro surgeons have discovered a counter part to the rage circuit of other animals in the brains of their patients. Pinker (2012) It would seem from these types of experiments and the discovery that human brains are not that different in their mental processes, that behavioural actions are not all under the complete control of the conscious mind and that mechanisms within our brains are pre wired for violence. Pinker goes on to describe the position and links to other systems of our brain.
The rage circuit is a pathway that connects three major structures in the lower parts of the brain. In the mid brain there is a collar of tissue called the ‘periaqueductal grey’, grey because it consists of grey matter, a tangle of neurons lacking the white sheaths that insulate output fibers, periaqueductal because it surrounds the aqueduct, a fluid filled canal that runs the length of the central nervous system from the spinal cord up to large cavities in the brain.
The periaqueductal grey contains circuits that control the sensory motor components of rage, they get input from parts of the brain that registers pain, balance, hunger, blood pressure, heart rate, temperature and hearing, particularly the shrieks of a fellow rat, all of which can make the animal irritated, frustrated or enraged. Their output feeds the motor programs that make the rat lunge, kick and bite, one of the oldest discoveries in the biology of violence is the link between pain or frustration and aggression.
When an animal is shocked or access to food is taken away it will attack the nearest fellow animal or bite an inanimate object if no living animal is available. The periaqueductal grey is partly under control of the hypothalamus, a cluster of nuclei that regulate the animals emotional, motivational and psychological states including hunger, thirst and lust. The hypothalamus monitors the temperature, pressure and chemistry of the blood stream and sits on top of the pituitary gland, which pumps hormones into the blood stream and amongst other things, regulates the release of adrenalin from the adrenal glands and the release of testosterone and estrogen from the gonads, which are part of the rage circuit.
In humans the Amygdala modulates the hypothalamus, as you will remember from earlier the Amygdala is responsible for memory, it also affects the emotional feeling that occur especially when fear is present and will encode these memories into our mind to remind us exactly what fear we should be tuned into. An angry face, aggressive posture, clenched fist, will all trigger neural activity in the Amygdala, this in turn sends a communication to our conscious mind with the message ‘remember the last time’
At the beginning of this chapter, I laid out two categories of violence, social violence and A social violence. It is now reasonably clear that structures and mechanisms within our brain produce two basic behavioural patterns, that of predation and domination and it is these two categories that link themselves to social or A social violence. Social violence being the path to domination and the attaining of resources, A social violence the path to predation, the killing of our own species, to also enhance the attainment of resources to survive and propagate, but not always.
The reasons we construct to explain why these behaviours are enacted are our minds attempt to civilize the moral code that many now live by, whereas in an age gone by, things were very different from what they are now, the rule of law and society supported aggressive, violent behaviour in a much more open and visceral way. Yes, we have also got the capacity for great acts of kindness and compassion, we are altruistic, cooperative, but let us not be deceived by this dichotomy, for humans have evolved complex structures to ensure survival, the showing of reciprocal lateritic behaviours is just another way of banking some credit for the possibility of future hardship.
Smith, J, B. and Alloway, K, D. (2013) Rat whisker motor cortex is subdivided into sensory-input and motor-output areas. Front. Neural Circuits doi: 10.3389/fncir.2013.00004. Published on 28 Jan 2013.
Wikipedia (2014) 10% of Brain myth. Accessed on 28-04-2014 @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth
Yochelson and Samenow (2013)Criminal thinking paterns and turning to crime. A2 Psychology revision. Accessed on 15/04/2014 @ http://psychorevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/criminal-thinking-patterns-and-turning.html
What we do in life echoes in eternity” From Ridley Scott classic film, The Gladiator (2002). Spoken by the film’s hero, Maximus who plays the Gladiator.
Warrior tribes are traditionally egalitarian with no political hierarchy and no social pecking order; individuals as a result of a coup or a personal challenge form them where they have forcibly taken control of several groups that are organised together. In contrast, a state has a political hierarchy with a subordinate political group and power is transferred or taken by coercive strategies, any power obtained by a political group usually has a limited period of time that it can be held for, unlike a dictatorship that has no set time limit. A tribal leader that takes control usually has to fight or use deception to unseat the current ruler. In general, conflict between tribes or states are conducted for one very basic reason “predation” The act of predation involves plundering and marauding known today as ‘war’ in order to hunt, kill or gain resources, that in turn gave the victor an evolutionary advantage in being able to spread their genes into a wider population.
To some individuals today, the idea of war in any form is repugnant. However, evolutionary psychologists would argue that war is a necessary process to single out and eradicate weak genes in favour of the strongest gene. Warrior traits like those within the women warriors of Dahomey discussed above, would have been passed from generation to generation and in doing so ensured the survival of the gene.
In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins (1976) clearly creates a difference between the gene and the human organism, his main theme is that the organisms are designed by genes for the sole purpose of enabling the genes to reproduce themselves. By creating this divide, between the human organism and the gene, he allows for an understanding that the gene is the dominant part of this relationship and has a ruthless selfishness that underpins the physical and psychological processes of homeo-sapiens and to this end, war is a clear and definitive way of ensuring natural selection.
Humans are, along with all animals on the planet, survival machines and when one individual comes upon another in competition over resources, one may well hit back. An idea to keep in mind while considering if human behaviour or some mental trait is an evolutionary adaptation that is being driven by genes and evolution, is a simple question, is it in the genetic interest of the human organism? For example, is it in the genetic interest of an individual to band together with another individual, creating a tribe, to make war on another tribe of individuals? It matters not if the tribes are the aggressors intending to expand their territory and resources or protect their resources.
On the question of rape, is it again in the genetic interest of a man to rape a women and spread his genetic blueprint? I am not for a second supporting this behaviour, however there is a clear difference between what we now know as evolutional behaviour and a moral code by which the majority of humans live. There is an argument that has been put forward by evolutional psychologist that this behaviour supports human existence.
Local groups banding together make up tribes. In the past, any small group that came together for the purposes of warfare would have been classified as a tribe and villages, settlements or large families could all have created this type of unit. A region that was being threatened by an aggressive tribe would have had good reason to form a tribe, based on mutual associations for the benefit of everyone. They would have been better aligned to protect their women, children, livestock, buildings, homes and farming produce, all of which supports their survival and reproduction. In some cases, a tribe may have consisted of a very large village that had a lot to protect. Tribes were a more effective way for a large population to be successful in warfare, with warriors within the group being escalated to high levels of status. The status of a warrior within a tribe gave them more access to resources, which would include women, food and shelter.
A warrior, although genetically predisposed for violence, would not engage another warrior just for the sake of it. As humans living within a social environment, all individuals have the capacity for violence. They have evolved in the same manner and warriors are not, as common belief would have it, blood thirsty or have a death wish. They do not go around indiscriminately attacking members of their own species for glory. How would any survival machine know that the survival machine that they are attacking is not as strong and mentally equipped as they are.
They have the same chances as any other individual, they may have the same weapons and be skilled in their use. This potential likelihood of injury or death by randomly attacking another member of your own species is a very strong natural selective process, which predisposes an individual to be careful and weigh heavily on the thought of combat and if the potential benefits are worth the risk and outweigh the expected cost. As a species, humans are among the most intelligent to walk the earth and therefore have the capacity to consider if their genetic inheritance will be enhanced by the use of violence, with the warrior who is at the sharp end of the stick taking all the risk.
In a remarkable book by Hobbs The Leviathan (1660) in the chapter “Of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery” he talks about men being equal in faculties of body and mind, that on occasion some men can be stronger and quicker in mind. However, in general when taken together any man can claim what another has, the weakest of men has strength enough to kill a stronger man, this can be achieved by deception and entrapment or by association with others that may also be at risk of threat from the stronger man or tribe.
Hobbs goes on to also consider the strength of mind, which arguably is the more potent of traits when it comes to domination and war stating “I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one’s own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men’s at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share” Men therefore seem to have a trait that allows for violence and war, one which is inherited and shows itself when two men or an opposing tribe want the same thing, when this situation arises they become mortal enemies, locking onto a path that eventually leads to either one destroying or subduing another.
Tribes are the vehicles that allow men to obtain dominance and resources over other men and within tribes warriors arise; they step up to the challenge and grow in stature and character. Hobbs goes on to identify three causes of conflict between men and the effects of such a cause “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name” From these words we can gain a sense of the motivations, traits and character that define a warrior and the reasons that drive them into action, for competition, diffidence and glory.
Competition between humans has always been a part of the genetic blueprint and is also found in the majority of other animal species. Men compete for the right to take a women, to own land which is better than the next man, to obtain food, water or fuel from the earth, all of which enables the individual that owns these to out-produce his competitors, produce more healthy children and pass these traits onto future generations. Diffidence is not so well known, why would a warrior pit himself against something that he has a fear of or is unfamiliar with? According to Hobbs it’s safety! Defending one’s own family or others that help support your family against an unknown assailant is as natural as going to war to increase your resources, the survival machine has this defense automatically built into its genetic blueprint.
The idea that humans are genetically encoded for violence and war to some, will seem like some science fiction film depicting the invasion of earth by aliens, the logic is plain when viewed from the genes point of view, having only one aim for millions of years, replicate, replicate, replicate, at all cost replicate.
The behaviour of humans throughout history has supported the action of war and the development of the warrior spirit, it can be found in the architecture of our structures, the development of our technology, the words and language used to communicate with. One of the great wonders of the world today is the Great Wall of China, built to protect a people from invading warriors with no aim other than to conquer and dominate the lands and the people therein. Although this structure is vast, it is no different from the forts and castles of old or the doors we lock when sleeping for the night, left over behaviours from our ancient past.
Today it’s not the tribal band or warring village that invade our fears, although terrorism carried out by a few fanatical individuals has created an indulgence in the act of protection and the lengths that some will go to protect their borders in order to feel safe. No, today it’s states and countries, especially those ran by individual dictators who seem bent on gaining as much power as they can that we fear, what has been done to protect us from these countries? Humans have used their intelligence to develop technologies that can build weapons of mass destruction, satellites that orbit the earth to spy on their neighbours, a far cry away from the days of our past, but still this behaviour is imbedded in the way mankind has evolved and the mechanism that helped drive this evolution.
The ancient past of humans is a far cry away from where we are now, back then, nature had set in motion a behaviour that was to forever mould the future of mankind. In our ancient history men were wired for aggression and violence and to all intent and purposes were living in a perpetual state of anarchy, it is from this historical majeure that warriors were born.
Becoming a Warrior
War has been the ultimate mechanism in which a warrior learnt their path, the journey and the methods used to create warriors differed depending on the culture. The Maasai people of Eastern Africa are a Nilotic group that migrated from the Nile region, they are pastoralists, which is a social and economic system based on the herding and trading of livestock. Great value is placed on cattle that are used as a currency to settle most issues that arise in the community. They are also well known for their warrior men, who are raised with the sole intention of becoming a warrior. They live for the majority of their lives outside the main tribe and are not permitted to marry until they are older and have become an elder of the group.
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Publishers, Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1660) Chapter – Of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. The Leviathan. Accessed on 10-12-13 @ http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
This year has seen the publishing of my 2nd book Volitional Attention Training – Neural Plasticity and Combative Application – below is another exract from the book, enjoy the read.
Consider this very straightforward question, what is the difference between the mind and the brain? Which one of these is responsible for that feeling that, something is just not right? You know that thing that we call gut, our instincts, those that we believe have protected us at some time in our long forgotten history, allowing us to survive the predators of that time.
To enable an individual to commit to training, they have to be secure in the knowledge that what they are about to undertake will provide them with the desired outcome and in today’s environment, that is coping with the predators that walk our street, the thugs and petty criminals being in the wrong place at the wrong time or the professional that has to deal with these feelings on a day to day, month to month basis. I remember talking with a US ranger, retired special forces guy, you know the type of person that films are made of, one that has at every turn in the road stepped forward to go where most fear to tread, I remember clearly his words “I ignored my instincts nine times and each time, I was either shot or stabbed”. Any training that is maladaptive or does not contain procedures that tap into this long forgotten sixth sense may ultimately fall short. If your training includes an understanding of instincts, what they are, how to recognise them, what they are not, then you are again on the path to a personal understanding, that uses the most powerful tool in our armory, that which has been responsible for dragging us along that evolutionary road to today’s modern man, the human brain and the mind that lies within.
To start this process we first have to go way back, to the first society that proposed the hypothesis of two brains. The first people to propose this were the ancient Greeks. It’s obviously not two brains just two systems and for a change they are named system one and system two, they are also known as ‘Dual Processing systems’. In his book the Science of Fear Gardener (2008) used the term ‘head’ and ‘gut’ to explore the thought processes that are used by the two systems, as they are distinctly different. These terms are very appropriate to this discourse and so I will use them here as well. System two is labeled, “Head” and is responsible for reason, this is our conscious mind the one that we engage when we consider a situation, it works at a much slower pace than gut, taking its time to calculate, consider, working with logic and what it believes is the correct thought or answer.
System one is labeled “Gut”, this is our subconscious mind at work, which is directly linked to our evolutionary past and is responsible for our survival and development to this day. Unlike system two, system one is super quick, it creates thought and transfers this to our conscious mind in a split second, gut has no time for the slow processes that Head has to work with. Gut is the source for the feelings of fear, unease, it makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck it triggers your fight or flight response.
The US ranger story above is an example of system one sending signals from the subconscious mind, warning you that there is something not quite right with the situation, Head then gets involved and considers the situation, allowing time for the Head to over-rule the Gut and in the case of my friend above nearly costing him his life. “The idea that System 1 cognition is ancient and System 2 cognition is modern, in evolutionary terms, is a recurring theme in dual-process theories. This is often linked to the assertion that while System 1 cognition is shared with other animals, System 2 cognition is uniquely human. The last idea arises from its association with uniquely human processes such as language and reflective consciousness and the apparent ability to perform cognitive acts (such as hypothetical simulation of future and counterfactual possibilities) that are assumed to be beyond animals” Evans J (2006). One thing is very clear, system one is linked to thoughts that are produced almost instantly and the evidence suggests that this system is part of the mechanism that our long lost stone age ancestors used to alert them to impending danger, or when they were the main course on the menu. This system would have been selected over and above system two as an evolutionary adaptation, to enhance survival. Now, modern man is the safest he has ever been and does not usually find himself being hunted for dinner, he now has more distractions for Head to think about and the need for system two is no longer a critical mechanism.
Head all to often interrupts Gut and provides a logical reason why there is no danger around the corner. However this does not mean that it will be lost, far from it, this is the system that kicks in when we walk down a dark ally, hear a strange noise in the dead of night, or maybe you are a professional officer and are about to enter a building that you know may contain danger and you feel uneasy. Understanding how these two systems interact with each other is another key in the process to protecting oneself and family. System one uses a quick and simple way of producing thoughts, which we usually refer to as instincts, the process is straightforward and super fast.
Knowledge obtained by Head can transfer to Gut, a novice martial artist learning to strike and kick or a policeman learning to handcuff or draw and shoot, first finds the moves cumbersome and slow, having to continually practice the moves, paying attention to each step in the process, secure one arm with my left hand, reach and find my cuffs with my right, flip them open, snap one side onto the wrist. Continued training and practice, for extended periods of time wires the mental and physical process into the brain, you then come to a point where conscious thought is no longer necessary, you are capable of flowing through the process with speed and accuracy, the process has been internalised, or to put it another way, it has become spontaneous. Interestingly, if at this stage, we were to apply volitional attention to the process, the now fast and spontaneous process would be interrupted and slowed, creating a possible choke point in the learned behaviour.
So system one “Gut” is intuitive, quick and emotional. Gut decides instantly while Head thinks about it for a while, and then finally after life changing seconds have ticked by makes a decision. Gut uses inbuilt settings that are simple rules of thumb, these are hard wired neural pathways that fire when certain stimuli are presented, which natural selection hard wired into our subconscious innate brains a millennium ago, this system does not allow Gut to adjust in any way; it does not give us time to think! These rules of thumb are known as heuristics and biases, they are the brain’s way of processing stimuli at lightning speed, insuring that Head does not get involved, putting at risk the survival of the individual.
Gardener, D. (2008). The science of fear. Published July 17th 2008 by Dutton Adult.
Evans, J, St, B, T, (2006) Dual System Theories of Cognition. Centre for Thinking and Language, School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK accessed on 20/07/2013 link, http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2006/docs/p202.pdf