The unconscious mind
Discussion
On BBC4 there was an Horizon programme on the un(sub)sonscious mind and how it effects decision making. There was a bit on autopilot responses which is hardly new but overall it was quite revealing. There was the obligatory MRI scanner. They'll be using them on Britians got Talent soon.
I am looking for a house to buy. My wife and I first of all see the see from the outside and check the area before making the effort to see inside. The norm is that about 3/4s are rejected at this stage.
On paper one looked perfect for us. All our criteria were met. As we turned into the cul de sac my wife said: I don't like it. I wasn't going to let it go at that and asked her what had put her off the area. She said she didn't know. I drove out of the road, turned the car around and then drove into it more slowly and asked her to point out things which put her off the place.
I won't go into her reasons but it was clear that she'd registered a number of features instantly without consciously 'seeing' them. I was concentrating on driving and had missed most.
It is a fascinating subject. Who hasn't been introduced to someone and disliked them instantly. You consciously give them another chance, you start to be friendly and then some time later they turn into the person you thought they were first of all.
I am looking for a house to buy. My wife and I first of all see the see from the outside and check the area before making the effort to see inside. The norm is that about 3/4s are rejected at this stage.
On paper one looked perfect for us. All our criteria were met. As we turned into the cul de sac my wife said: I don't like it. I wasn't going to let it go at that and asked her what had put her off the area. She said she didn't know. I drove out of the road, turned the car around and then drove into it more slowly and asked her to point out things which put her off the place.
I won't go into her reasons but it was clear that she'd registered a number of features instantly without consciously 'seeing' them. I was concentrating on driving and had missed most.
It is a fascinating subject. Who hasn't been introduced to someone and disliked them instantly. You consciously give them another chance, you start to be friendly and then some time later they turn into the person you thought they were first of all.
Bedazzled said:
What was the programme? I'd be interested to see that.
I've had the same experience when buying houses, and I form opinions of people very quickly too as I'm sure we all do. I expect it's connected with 80/20 fight or flight decision making, i.e. our brains evolved to make reasonably accurate pattern-matching decisions, so that we could respond rapidly to threats such as predators, and opportunities too.
Our instincts aren't always right though, don't confuse one's prejudice for intuition. If someone does something that matches your initial first impression, it just reinforces the preconceived patterns in your brain and you tend to ignore things that don't. It's called confirmation bias.
It's not on iPlayers. The only link I can find is: I've had the same experience when buying houses, and I form opinions of people very quickly too as I'm sure we all do. I expect it's connected with 80/20 fight or flight decision making, i.e. our brains evolved to make reasonably accurate pattern-matching decisions, so that we could respond rapidly to threats such as predators, and opportunities too.
Our instincts aren't always right though, don't confuse one's prejudice for intuition. If someone does something that matches your initial first impression, it just reinforces the preconceived patterns in your brain and you tend to ignore things that don't. It's called confirmation bias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf
It'll probably be on BBC4 sooner or later.
I used to be i/ce of my force control room, in charge of all major incidents until I could pass them off to a local ranker. Everything someone in my position did was listed on a contemporariness serial. There was no hiding place.
I used to read the serials of the other Ops1s to see if I could learn something and avoid mistakes. You knew you'd arrived when they started to read yours.
There used to be an electronic prompt sheet and it was interesting to see that they didn't always follow the order, in fact hardly ever, yet it was arranged logically. When they did something sooner than I thought necessary or it was merited I used to ask them why. The norm was that if it was a good decision then they would often say that they did not know but that it seemed a good idea. The more experienced they were the more often they did it.
It wasn't a simple case of experience as if it was they'd be able to say why.
I was really chuffed when I started to do it and I had the confidence to do so but still didn't know. In one job, a murder, I sent a radio message for the controller to broadcast: this is either a domestic or a contract killing. Either way, it is safe to approach.
The job went bent later and there were all sorts of repercussions. I had to give reasons for that radio message and I really, but really, struggled despite sending officers into a firearms situation was not something anyone does lightly.
There were a number of previous jobs, most of them mine, that I could use as examples to support the decision. I was told that I could not have considered all of those at the time but I think my unconscious worked it out.
In one job I worked out I made a decision every three seconds for something like 20 mins. Most of them were spot on. I didn't get cocky as all the other Ops1s did the same thing. I can't think that fast.
I'm a touch typist. I don't think about which key to press.
I used to read the serials of the other Ops1s to see if I could learn something and avoid mistakes. You knew you'd arrived when they started to read yours.
There used to be an electronic prompt sheet and it was interesting to see that they didn't always follow the order, in fact hardly ever, yet it was arranged logically. When they did something sooner than I thought necessary or it was merited I used to ask them why. The norm was that if it was a good decision then they would often say that they did not know but that it seemed a good idea. The more experienced they were the more often they did it.
It wasn't a simple case of experience as if it was they'd be able to say why.
I was really chuffed when I started to do it and I had the confidence to do so but still didn't know. In one job, a murder, I sent a radio message for the controller to broadcast: this is either a domestic or a contract killing. Either way, it is safe to approach.
The job went bent later and there were all sorts of repercussions. I had to give reasons for that radio message and I really, but really, struggled despite sending officers into a firearms situation was not something anyone does lightly.
There were a number of previous jobs, most of them mine, that I could use as examples to support the decision. I was told that I could not have considered all of those at the time but I think my unconscious worked it out.
In one job I worked out I made a decision every three seconds for something like 20 mins. Most of them were spot on. I didn't get cocky as all the other Ops1s did the same thing. I can't think that fast.
I'm a touch typist. I don't think about which key to press.
wendyg said:
You have pretty much summarised the 'Conscious Competence' Model of learning!!
Learners start as 'Unconscious incompetent' - they have no idea how ignorant they are, and assess their own competance very poorly.
They progress to 'conscious incompetent' - they realise how much they don't know.
As they continue, they become 'conscious competent' - they can perform a skill but are still aware of their processes.
The final stage is 'unconscious competence' where the skills are so embedded that processes are automatic.
There is a final stage which is often developed by those who have to train others, where someone unconscious competent learns to deconstruct the task into its components so that they can teach it.
Who are you calling incompetent?Learners start as 'Unconscious incompetent' - they have no idea how ignorant they are, and assess their own competance very poorly.
They progress to 'conscious incompetent' - they realise how much they don't know.
As they continue, they become 'conscious competent' - they can perform a skill but are still aware of their processes.
The final stage is 'unconscious competence' where the skills are so embedded that processes are automatic.
There is a final stage which is often developed by those who have to train others, where someone unconscious competent learns to deconstruct the task into its components so that they can teach it.
Well, me I suppose.
I've driven on autopilot. I was coming out from the office one afternoon with a staff member who'd just joined. I made my way to the car park then realised that not only could I not remember where I'd parked my car, but which one I'd come in. I had both sets of keys so that didn't help. I had to wander in and look around me without appear desperate.
I could not remember anything of the morning before sitting down in front of the screen and logging on. Really quite frightening, especially for the others on the road at the time.
I stopped a car once and smelt alcohol. I bagged the bloke but he failed to inflate the bag so I nicked him. He refused all procedures. The defence was that the police were racialist from start - me - to finish - the station sergeant who didn't do the procedure corrently. The chap was Jewish.
I was asked why I'd stopped the car and I had to say that I didn't know why. I said that as soon as I had seen it I thought it worth a stop. Lots of argument and then it was put to me that I stopped him because he was Jewish. I pointed out that I couldn't really see the driver and even if I could I'm not sure I would have said the bloke was Jewish.
He was found guil5y and banned but it got me thinking as to why and in the end I decided to trust my first instincts in such matters and it worked a nubmer of times. The percentage was around 25% for positives and that's pretty good as any PC will tell you.
When I'd got a bit of time in PCs used to ask 'How did you know?' and I'd say, 'When you've got some experience you won't have to ask.' So despite saying that just to pose and irritate them, it appears it was spot on.
I've been wrong though. We nicked a group of four offenders who were very experienced in their chosen profession, just not particularly good at it. I did a lot of research before interviewing them - you could in those days - phoning up previous arresting officers, that sort of thing. All said he'd give me the run around. I had an MO, with branches: if answer to Q1 was A then go to B, that sort of thing. He had a stroppy brief whom I'd crossed swords with before so I booked the room for an hour with a caveat that I might want more. I was up for it.
After ten minutes I'd got a full and frank confession. I had difficulty taking it in. When I came out the brief asked me why I was so irritated after getting a confession and I said how much work I'd put in. He said it was obvious by my manner. I wondered if that was the reason the bloke just coughed.
People, including me and probably you, Wendy, are peculiar.
Perhpas not entirely on topic but I used to be in charge of the CCTV room in Brighton police station - amongsth other duties. When a public order or 'lively' incident took place we would get officers to view the tap before interviewing prisoners. What frequently occured was that officers whould say: I don't remember that happening. They would be astounded that they missed something. That's no stretch of belief there though, although some of the incidents happened right in front of them.
The strange thing was that many would say that they 'remembered' things in a very different way. It might be simple things, such as they thought the person was standing up. Once it was that the officer thought he'd spoken with the victim after they'd been injured but it was quite clear that he had not. Timing is often confused. An incident might have taken a few seconds but they would remember everything they did quite clearly but they assumed it had happened over a longer, sometimes much longer, period.
I've never lied in court, not in 30 years and I spent more time giving evidence than most officers. But I now wonder how many of my statements, which were backed up by my memory so 'true' in that aspect, were in fact wrong. It's a bit of a weird feeling not being able to trust one's memory.
I had a complaint from a MotP regarding poor response to an emergency call. She reckoned she had said such and such but a review of the tape (another job of mine) showed that she had not. I got the complainant to come to the nick (if we'd been in the wrong I would have gone to them) and let her hear the tape. She had brought her boss along and I was initially worried about making her look a bit of an idiot because she had left out important information, despite being asked the normal things by the controller.
I left the room, wandered back to be told: that's not how I remember it. I shrugged and said: but that's how it happened. However, they were not to be convinced. They wanted to make a complaint. So I had to write one out desite knowing that I had ample evidence that it was rubbish and the complainant knew it. The controller, one of my best, had even asked: is there anything else you'd like to tell me that's relevant?
Mind you, D&C phoned me when they received the file and copy tape and asked me why I hadn't played the tape to them. So they don't read files.
The woman was convinced of what she said and despite overwhelming evidence that she was talking rubbish, and she still maintained that what she remembered was right. Very strange.
Minds are funny things. I might ignore mine.
The strange thing was that many would say that they 'remembered' things in a very different way. It might be simple things, such as they thought the person was standing up. Once it was that the officer thought he'd spoken with the victim after they'd been injured but it was quite clear that he had not. Timing is often confused. An incident might have taken a few seconds but they would remember everything they did quite clearly but they assumed it had happened over a longer, sometimes much longer, period.
I've never lied in court, not in 30 years and I spent more time giving evidence than most officers. But I now wonder how many of my statements, which were backed up by my memory so 'true' in that aspect, were in fact wrong. It's a bit of a weird feeling not being able to trust one's memory.
I had a complaint from a MotP regarding poor response to an emergency call. She reckoned she had said such and such but a review of the tape (another job of mine) showed that she had not. I got the complainant to come to the nick (if we'd been in the wrong I would have gone to them) and let her hear the tape. She had brought her boss along and I was initially worried about making her look a bit of an idiot because she had left out important information, despite being asked the normal things by the controller.
I left the room, wandered back to be told: that's not how I remember it. I shrugged and said: but that's how it happened. However, they were not to be convinced. They wanted to make a complaint. So I had to write one out desite knowing that I had ample evidence that it was rubbish and the complainant knew it. The controller, one of my best, had even asked: is there anything else you'd like to tell me that's relevant?
Mind you, D&C phoned me when they received the file and copy tape and asked me why I hadn't played the tape to them. So they don't read files.
The woman was convinced of what she said and despite overwhelming evidence that she was talking rubbish, and she still maintained that what she remembered was right. Very strange.
Minds are funny things. I might ignore mine.
I used to take my lad to rugby practice.
You could see a move that they practised replicated on the field but the trick was that the lads were not thinking about where to be, how to handle the ball, how fast to run, they were concentrating on the opposition, the main variable.
I could also see 'triggers'. The opposition would, for instance, leave a player on the inside while a back ran along the line, trying to draw a defender. A player would cover immediately, without thinking (not a rugby player's strong point it has to be said). So there was much that was all but automatic due to continualt practice. Anyone can get to that stage. The clever player, the gifted one, plans one or more steps ahead.
I've seen a fair bit of rugby but am often surprised when a player peels off for no apparent reason or, as often happens, one player will instruct another to move to a certain place. Look at the video later and I will often see the reason: their winger dropping back ready for a run, that sort of thing. These players are the ones who have that extra bit.
Practice might not make perfect but what it does do is allow a player to concentrate on the important bits of the game.
You could see a move that they practised replicated on the field but the trick was that the lads were not thinking about where to be, how to handle the ball, how fast to run, they were concentrating on the opposition, the main variable.
I could also see 'triggers'. The opposition would, for instance, leave a player on the inside while a back ran along the line, trying to draw a defender. A player would cover immediately, without thinking (not a rugby player's strong point it has to be said). So there was much that was all but automatic due to continualt practice. Anyone can get to that stage. The clever player, the gifted one, plans one or more steps ahead.
I've seen a fair bit of rugby but am often surprised when a player peels off for no apparent reason or, as often happens, one player will instruct another to move to a certain place. Look at the video later and I will often see the reason: their winger dropping back ready for a run, that sort of thing. These players are the ones who have that extra bit.
Practice might not make perfect but what it does do is allow a player to concentrate on the important bits of the game.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff