As a kid, I have seen and been part of fights that would start with a friendly pat but would soon turn into a fist fight. In most of the cases, the friendly(or playful) pat by one kid would not be felt as a pat by the other kid, but rather too strong for a pat. The other kid(victim) would reciprocate even more strongly and the fight soon escalates. Daniel Wolpert has an interesting theory on why that is the case.
Apparently brain has a predicting machinery, which has a pretty good understanding of the real world mechanics. This machinery predicts the impacts of one's own sensory commands. For instance, when you're shaking a ketch up bottle, you have a good sense of how much force you're applying. Because you can always feel, if somebody is helping you get the ketch-up out of the bottle. Its as if your brain knows what to expect from its command and any additional force is attributed to external causes. It subtracts out "what to expect" component from the sensory feedback that it obtains, to know if there is external causes or force. Well this is also the exact same reason why you can't tickle yourself. Your brain's predicting machinery sort of subtracts out "what it expects" from that of the sensory feedback and hence there is no (or less) residual sensation/information for the brain to be tickled about.
In the case of kid-fights, escalation happens because each of the involved kids would claim that the other kid hit harder than oneself. Wolpert concludes that the aggressor often underestimates the impact of his force on the victim. This is because his predicting machinery is actively engaged and knows what to expect from his actions, often makes him underestimate his force on the victim. In other words, if the agressor were to inflict the same amount of force on himself (or if he were to simulate it), he would feel the impact less intense than if he were to inflict it on somebody else. This results in a never ending tit for tat scenario, escalating in bigger fights.
Simplicity of Wolpert's conclusion is quite impressive and it probably has a deeper implication. Words also have impact on people's reactions and emotions. Any sensible person tries to predict the impact of his words on other people. So, I guess, the same could be extended to verbal exchanges between people as well.
I'm reminded of something that I came across long time back, in which the author explains how communication between people can get way too complicated. Speakers try to predict what listeners might think and try to be subtle in conveying messages. Listeners also predict what the speaker tries to convey both explicit and subtle messages. To further complicate things, it is not uncommon for people trying to predict what other person predicts about what they predict. Things can get really loopy when the predicting machinery is on overdrive!
Apparently brain has a predicting machinery, which has a pretty good understanding of the real world mechanics. This machinery predicts the impacts of one's own sensory commands. For instance, when you're shaking a ketch up bottle, you have a good sense of how much force you're applying. Because you can always feel, if somebody is helping you get the ketch-up out of the bottle. Its as if your brain knows what to expect from its command and any additional force is attributed to external causes. It subtracts out "what to expect" component from the sensory feedback that it obtains, to know if there is external causes or force. Well this is also the exact same reason why you can't tickle yourself. Your brain's predicting machinery sort of subtracts out "what it expects" from that of the sensory feedback and hence there is no (or less) residual sensation/information for the brain to be tickled about.
In the case of kid-fights, escalation happens because each of the involved kids would claim that the other kid hit harder than oneself. Wolpert concludes that the aggressor often underestimates the impact of his force on the victim. This is because his predicting machinery is actively engaged and knows what to expect from his actions, often makes him underestimate his force on the victim. In other words, if the agressor were to inflict the same amount of force on himself (or if he were to simulate it), he would feel the impact less intense than if he were to inflict it on somebody else. This results in a never ending tit for tat scenario, escalating in bigger fights.
Simplicity of Wolpert's conclusion is quite impressive and it probably has a deeper implication. Words also have impact on people's reactions and emotions. Any sensible person tries to predict the impact of his words on other people. So, I guess, the same could be extended to verbal exchanges between people as well.
I'm reminded of something that I came across long time back, in which the author explains how communication between people can get way too complicated. Speakers try to predict what listeners might think and try to be subtle in conveying messages. Listeners also predict what the speaker tries to convey both explicit and subtle messages. To further complicate things, it is not uncommon for people trying to predict what other person predicts about what they predict. Things can get really loopy when the predicting machinery is on overdrive!
No comments:
Post a Comment