This is an
excellent item providing a modern take on cognition itself. It is cell worth reading closely and thinking
about.
It also makes
instinctual actions much clearer. A
perception of danger for example signals an immediate reaction based of the available
information acquired by the bottom brain.
The top brain gets to catch up after the fact.
It also
informs that individuals need to be trained upwards into mover mode just to be
able to work with them rationally. Thus
a lack of social skills merely means that portion of input is not yet trained
up properly and needs to be addressed.
Thus shyness can be explained as an excess of instinctual fear
overwhelming the upper brain. Rational
training may not help much but overcoming fear may.
This is a must
read.
How
the Brain Creates Personality: A New Theory
Are you a mover, a
perceiver, a stimulator, or an adapter? Modes of thinking can be understood in
terms of how the top and bottom—rather than right and left—parts of the brain
interact.
STEPHEN M. KOSSLYN AND G. WAYNE MILLERNOV 11 2013, 1:31 PM ET
It is possible to
examine any object—including a brain—at different levels. Take the example of a
building. If we want to know whether the house will have enough space for a
family of five, we want to focus on the architectural level; if we want to know
how easily it could catch fire, we want to focus on the materials level; and if
we want to engineer a product for a brick manufacturer, we focus on molecular
structure.
Similarly, if we want to
know how the brain gives rise to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we want to
focus on the bigger picture of how its structure allows it to store and process
information—the architecture, as it were. To understand the brain at this
level, we don’t have to know everything about the individual connections among
brain cells or about any other biochemical process. We use a relatively high
level of analysis, akin to architecture in buildings, to characterize relatively
large parts of the brain.
People vary in the
degree that they tend to rely on the top and bottom brain systems. This
leads to four basic cognitive modes that underlie how a person approaches the
world and interacts with other people.
To explain the Theory of
Cognitive Modes, which specifies general ways of thinking that underlie how a
person approaches the world and interacts with other people, we need to provide
you with a lot of information. We want you to understand where this theory came
from—that we didn’t just pull it out of a hat or make it up out of whole cloth.
But there’s no need to lose the forest for the trees: there are only three
key points that you will really need to keep in mind.
First, the top parts and the bottom parts of the
brain have different functions. The top brain formulates and executes
plans (which often involve deciding where to move objects or how to move the
body in space), whereas the bottom brain classifies and interprets
incoming information about the world. The two halves always work together;
most important, the top brain uses information from the bottom brain to
formulate its plans (and to reformulate them, as they unfold over time).
Second, according to the
theory, people vary in the degree that they tend to rely on each of the two
brain systems for functions that are optional (i.e., not dictated by the
immediate situation): Some people tend to rely heavily on [1]both brain
systems, some rely heavily on the [2]bottom brain system but not the top, some
rely heavily on the [3]top but not the bottom, and some [4]don’t rely heavily
on either system.
Third, these four scenarios define four
basic cognitive modes—
general ways of thinking that underlie how a person approaches the world and
interacts with other people. According to the Theory of Cognitive Modes,
each of us has a particular dominant cognitive mode, which affects how we
respond to situations we encounter and how we relate to others. The possible
modes are: Mover Mode, Perceiver Mode,
Stimulator Mode, and Adaptor Mode.
Systems, Not Dichotomies
We use what researchers
have learned to present a new theory of brain function that hinges on how the
top and bottom parts of the brain interact. But we do not try to characterize
the top and bottom parts of the brain in terms of a simple dichotomy or set of
dichotomies, which was exactly what was done with the existing and well-known
division of the brain into two halves: namely the left versus the right, the
dominant pop-culture brain story of the last few decades. You have probably
heard of this theory, in which the left and right halves of the brain are
characterized, respectively, as logical versus intuitive, verbal versus
perceptual, analytic versus synthetic, and so forth. The trouble is that none
of these sweeping generalizations has stood up to careful scientific scrutiny.
The differences between the left and right sides of the brain are nuanced, and
simple, sweeping dichotomies do not in fact explain how the two sides function.
When considering large
portions of the brain, we need to think about systems—not dichotomies. A system
has inputs and outputs, and a set of constituent components that work together
to produce appropriate outputs for particular inputs.
A bicycle is a familiar
system: The inputs are forces that push down on the pedals, slight movements of
the rider’s body made in the act of balancing, and force that moves the
handlebars. The components include the seat, the wheels, the handlebars, the
pedals, the gears, the chain, and so forth. The outputs are the bike’s forward
motion, keeping upright, and going in a specific direction, all at the same
time. Crucially, the components are designed to work together to produce
appropriate outputs for the system as a whole—for the entire bike.
The same is true of the
brain: It has different areas that do different things, and the result of the
brain areas’ working together is to produce appropriate outputs (such as your
avoiding an object) for particular inputs (such as specific sights and sounds).
For instance, if you see a car roaring toward you, you jump out of the way.
Top Brain, Bottom Brain
The Theory of Cognitive
Modes is based on organizing the brain into two major parts, top and bottom—each
of which we will characterize as a large system that processes information in
particular ways. As we show, we gain a lot by organizing the brain into these
two large systems, noting how constituent parts work together. Let’s begin by
being clear about what we mean by the top and bottom parts: Look at the diagram
of a side view of the brain, which shows the cerebral cortex, the thin outer
covering of the brain where most of the bodies of neurons reside. The cerebral
cortex is where most cognitive activities arise—and we focus almost entirely on
the cerebral cortex (not the “inner brain” structures that are located under
the cortex, in the interior of the brain, and are involved in emotion and many
automatic functions such as controlling arousal and hunger).
The diagram notes the
locations of the four lobes of the brain— occipital, temporal, frontal, and
parietal—and the location of the Sylvian fissure, a large, highly visible
crease that roughly divides the brain into top and bottom parts. Each of the
lobes implements many relatively specialized systems, but for our purposes it
will be most useful to group the lobes into two large processing systems: The
occipital and temporal lobes are in the bottom part of the brain, and the
parietal and most of the frontal lobes are in the top part of the brain. A
further neuroanatomical distinction must also be made: The frontal lobe
itself can be divided into a top and bottom portion, based on how these
portions are connected to the parietal and temporal lobes, respectively. Thus
the brain neatly divides into a top and bottom part.
The top and bottom
portions of the brain have very different functions. This fact was first
discovered in the context of visual perception, and it was supported in 1982 in
a landmark report by National Medal of Science winner Mortimer Mishkin and
Leslie G. Ungerleider, of the National Institute of Mental Health. This trailblazing
study, which went largely unnoticed in the popular culture, examined rhesus
monkeys. Their brains process visual information in much the same way as the
human brain.
The scientists trained
monkeys to perform two tasks. In the first task, the monkeys had to learn to
recognize which of two shapes concealed a bit of food. The shapes were
three-dimensional objects (such as a striped prismatic block) that concealed
small cups, one of which contained a tasty morsel. The objects were shuffled
randomly each time they were presented, but the same object covered the food
every time, so the animals needed to learn to recognize it in order to find the
food. In the second task, both objects were identical gray placards; both
placards concealed small cups, one of which contained food. Now, a small
cylindrical block was placed closer to whichever placard concealed the food.
The location of the cylinder was shuffled randomly each time the choice was
presented, so that it was closer to one of the placards than the other—but the
food was always under the placard that was closest to the cylinder. The monkeys
needed to learn to recognize which placard was closest to the cylinder in order
to find the food.
In short, one task
required learning to recognize shape,
whereas the other required learning to recognize relative location.
After each animal had
mastered the two tasks, a part of its brain was surgically removed. Some
animals had a portion of the bottom brain taken out (the lower part of the
temporal lobe), whereas others had a portion of the top brain taken out (the
rear part of the parietal lobe). The results of these operations were dramatic:
The animals that had a portion of the bottom brain removed no longer could
do the shape task—and could not be taught to perform it again—but they could
still perform the location task well. The animals that had a portion of the top
brain removed had exactly the opposite problem: They could no longer do the
location task, and could not relearn how to perform it—but they could still do
the shape task well.
The top and bottom brain
play specialized roles in memory, attention, decision making, planning, and
emotion.
Many later studies,
including those that relied on using neuroimaging to monitor activity in the
human brain while people performed tasks analogous to the ones the monkeys had
performed, have led to the same conclusion: Processing in the temporal lobe
(located in the bottom brain) plays a crucial role in visual recognition—the
sense that we’ve seen an object before, that it’s familiar (I’ve seen that cat before)—whereas
processing in the parietal lobe (in the top brain) plays a crucial role in
allowing us to register spatial relations (One object is to
the left side of the other).
These functions occur
relatively close to where neural connections deliver inputs from the eyes and
ears—but processing doesn’t just stop there. Rather, information about what an
object is and where it is located flows to other brain areas, which do
different things with that information. Researchers have shown that the top and
bottom brain play specialized roles in functions as diverse as memory,
attention, decision making, planning, and emotion.
The bottom part of the
brain is largely concerned with processing inputs from the senses and using
them to activate the appropriate memories about relevant objects and events.
For example, when you see a friend’s face in a sea of strangers, you recognize
her face because the input from the eyes acts like a key that unlocks the
memory of your friend. Once you’ve activated the relevant memories, you know
things about the stimulus that are not apparent in what you see—such as that
she likes cappuccino, has had a lot of experience working in your industry,
and often gives good advice.
Knowing what you are
seeing or hearing is sometimes an end in itself (such as when watching TV), but
not often. Usually, we want to know what’s going on around us so that we can
specify goals and figure out how to achieve them. For instance, you might
decide to ask your friend to get together at a favorite coffeehouse to have a
cup of cappuccino—and plan to ask her advice about a problem you are having at
work.
Where do such plans come
from, and how are they acted on?
Devising and carrying
out plans is the realm of the top-brain system. In particular, the top parts of
the frontal lobe are concerned with these functions. But how does the top brain
know what is being perceived? Information about where objects are located in
space is so important for making plans that it is processed directly in the top
brain; we need to know where objects are located in order to decide how to move
them or how to move our bodies as we seek to approach or avoid them. (In our
example, without such information, you couldn’t have known how to thread your
way through the crowd to reach and talk to your friend.) But we need to know
more than just where objects are located—we also need to know what they are.
Such information from the bottom brain goes to the top brain, allowing the top
brain to use information about the nature of objects being perceived.
The bottom-brain system
organizes signals from the senses. The top-brain system uses information about
the environment to figure out which goals to try to achieve.
The top part of the
frontal lobe also contains numerous areas that control movements. Because our
movements occur in our immediate environment, to program them appropriately
our brains need to know where objects are located—to reach for them, step over
them, run from them, and so forth. To walk over to your friend, you need to
know where she is relative to your body; to talk to her, you need to know where
she is facing, and you need to position yourself close enough (but not too
close!) so that she can hear you easily.
The top parts of our
frontal lobe can take into account the confluence of information about “what’s
out there,” our emotional reactions to it, and our goals. They then play a
crucial role in allowing us to formulate plans, make decisions, and direct
attention in particular ways (in part by connections to the parietal lobes);
they allow us to figure out what to do, given our goals and our emotional reactions
to the unfolding events that surround us.
The bottom-brain system
organizes signals from the senses, simultaneously comparing what is being
perceived with all the information previously stored in memory—and then uses
the results of such comparisons to classify and interpret the object or event
that gives rise to the input signals.
The top-brain system
uses information about the surrounding environment (in combination with other
sorts of information, such as emotional reactions and need for food or drink)
to figure out which goals to try to achieve. It actively formulates plans,
generates expectations about what should happen when a plan is executed, and
then—as the plan is being carried out—compares what is happening with what was
expected, adjusting the plan accordingly (for example, by adjusting your grip
as the phone starts to slip from your hand).
Four Cognitive Modes
Four distinct cognitive
modes emerge from how the top-brain and bottom-brain systems can interact. The
degree to which each of the brain systems is used spans a continuum, ranging
from highly utilized to minimally utilized. Nevertheless, for our purposes it
is useful to divide the continuum into “high” and “low” categories.
Mover Mode results
when the top- and bottom-brain systems are both highly utilized. When people
think in this mode, they are inclined to make and act on plans (using the
top-brain system) and to register the consequences of doing so (using the
bottom-brain system), subsequently adjusting plans on the basis of feedback. According
to our theory, people who habitually rely on Mover Mode typically are most
comfortable in positions that allow them to plan, act, and see the consequences
of their actions.
Perceiver Mode results
when the bottom-brain system is highly utilized but the top-brain system is
not. When people think in this mode, they use the bottom-brain system to try to
make sense of what they perceive in depth; they interpret what they experience,
put it in context, and try to understand the implications. However, by
definition, people who are operating in Perceiver Mode do not often initiate
detailed or complex plans.
Stimulator Mode results
when the top-brain system is highly utilized but the bottom-brain system is
not. According to our theory, when people rely on Stimulator Mode they may be
creative and original, but they do not always know when “enough is
enough”—their actions can be disruptive, and they may not adjust their behavior
appropriately.
Adaptor Mode results
when neither the top- nor the bottom-brain system is highly utilized. People
who are thinking in this mode are not caught up in initiating plans, nor are
they fully focused on classifying and interpreting what they experience.
Instead, our theory predicts that they are open to becoming absorbed by local
events and immediate imperatives. They should tend to be action-oriented, and
responsive to ongoing situations.
Each of us has a
dominant mode, which is a distinctive feature of our personality—as
characteristic and as central to our identity as our attitudes, beliefs, and
emotional makeup. You can take a test on our
website to find out which mode—Mover, Perceiver,
Stimulator, Adaptor—best characterizes your dominant cognitive mode. However,
our theory implies that we nevertheless sometimes adopt different modes in
different contexts.
The degree to which you
tend to use each system will affect your thoughts, feelings, and behavior in
profound ways.
Here’s a crucial point:
The two systems always work
together. You use the top brain to decide to walk over to talk to your friend
only after you know who she is (courtesy of the bottom brain). And after
talking to her, you formulate another plan, to enter the date and time in your
calendar, and then you need to monitor what happens (again using the bottom
brain) as you try to carry out this plan (a top-brain activity). Moreover, the
top-brain system prepares the bottom-brain system to classify expected objects
and events, making that system work more efficiently. If you were expecting to
see your friend in the crowd, this would actually be easier than noticing her
without warning. The expectation (via the top brain) “primes” the recognition
machinery in the bottom brain.
The systems interact in
various ways, however, the key hypothesis is that a person tends to use each of
the two brain systems to a greater or lesser extent.
We need to emphasize
that all of us use each brain system every minute of our waking lives—we
couldn’t function in the world without doing this. But we need to distinguish
between two kinds of use: One kind is like using the brain for walking, which
is largely dictated by the situation. If you see your friend and want to talk
to her, you walk. The other kind is like using the brain for dancing, which is
optional. You rarely, if ever, absolutely must dance. But you could learn to
dance, and dancing might develop into a hobby—and you then might seize any
opportunity to dance.
When we speak of
differences in the degree to which a person relies on the top-brain and
bottom-brain systems, we are speaking of differences in this second kind of utilization,
in the kind of processing that’s not simply dictated by a given situation. In
this sense, you can rely on one or the other brain system to a greater or
lesser degree. For example, you might typically rely on your bottom brain a
good deal but your top brain a little less, yielding good observations but
fewer complex and detailed plans. The degree to which you tend to use each
system will affect your thoughts, feelings, and behavior in profound ways. The
notion that each system can be more or less highly utilized, in this sense is
the foundation of the Theory of Cognitive Modes.
This post is adapted from Stephen M. Kosslyn and
G. Wayne Miller's Top
Brain, Bottom Brain: Surprising Insights into How You Think.
No comments:
Post a Comment