Free Will. Willpower. And How To Become A Millionaire

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

When we talk about will, it would be more correct to talk about stenicityas a general characteristic of the psyche. The opposite term - "asthenia" as "general weakness" is much more widespread, it sounds more often, since this is the most common and particular symptom in almost any disease or simply in case of chronic fatigue. " Stenicism"Is not well understood by the general public. Meanwhile, “sthenism” is a convenient term describing a general end-to-end inclination to activity, physical and mental, the ability to build goal-oriented behavior and consistently implement it, regardless of difficulties and unfavorable circumstances. In Western literature, this word practically does not occur, they usually talk about “volition” or “free will”, but here is a rare case when my servility to the West fails, these concepts seem to me less successful and intelligible. It should not be assumed that a "sthenic man" is necessarily a good thing. As always in such cases, when we talk about psychic mechanics, they are not in themselves bad or good. For example, paranoid psychopaths (well, in general, personalities of a paranoid warehouse, not necessarily pathological), are distinguished by the highest sthenism, but at the same time their readiness to see conspiracies everywhere and tirelessly fight the intrigues of enemies, only spoils their life and those around them (and if it will be what - some despotic boss and home tyrant, he will spoil the blood for a few, and if it is an absolute dictator of the sixth part of the land, there will be much more trouble from him). And in general, people with a super-dominant are highly stenic. For example, drug addicts in search of a dose show an iron will to victory, fearlessness, perseverance and fortitude, they laugh in the face of dangers and do not bow to the blows of fate, because they have a great goal. But in general, this property is undoubtedly useful and good (in a utilitarian, not in an ethical sense). But I want to emphasize once again that free will does not give us goals, does not give us skills and does not suggest ways to achieve. Our brain is just a tool that can be used more or less successfully. A hammer. And, continuing this metaphor, will is the willingness to hammer a nail for a long time and tediously. To miss, to slap on the fingers, to swear, and to score again. If we have the readiness, do not lack the necessary skills, then in the end we will find ourselves with smashed phalanges, the hammer is broken, and the nail is not hammered, and in general it was not a nail, but a screw, and the wall is concrete. That is, brains without will are common, and this is usually a sad sight. But will without brains is no less depressing sight.

Does "free will" exist at all? This is a very philosophical question, because the term is rather vague. In the sense in which free will is understood by the general industrial consciousness, it is more likely no than yes. The classic experience of Libet, back in the early 80s, before the neuroscientific revolution, is that the brain makes a decision about an action (in experience, to press a button with a finger) about half a second BEFORE the mind realizes this as its direct volitional decision. Moreover, each time a person sincerely believes that he does everything according to his own conscious desire. But in the form of free will outpouring in consciousness, this manifests itself approximately 200 milliseconds before the action, in total, consciousness has 100-150 milliseconds for the "veto right" and the last 50 milliseconds are already undergoing direct activation of the corresponding spinal motoneurons. This experience was repeatedly revised, criticized and revised again, and in general, with all the reservations - yes, this is what happens. Deep departments make their own decisions, without participation and without demand from consciousness. In this sense, our mind has a serving function - it bans some decisions, wraps the rest in a wrapper of free will and personal conscious desire. Another, already modern experience, the so-called. "The traveler's dilemma."It makes sense to discuss it in detail within decision theory, this is a long and separate story, but what is important? Not only do desires cause decisions, but decisions made alter initial preferences. Suppose we need to decide where to go on vacation - to Spain or Thailand. Suppose that in both places we see our pros and cons, but in general, for us, these are approximately equally attractive solutions. Until we made a difficult choice, but only imagine a possible vacation, our descriptions and assessments of it will be similar. But after making a decision (for example, we will go to Thailand), the rejected decision begins to be perceived as less desirable and pleasant.

On fMRI, this looks like a change in the reactions of the nucleus caudatus (caudate nucleus). The caudate nucleus is a part of the limbic system responsible, in particular, for the emotional saturation of our imaginary images (both memories of the past and predictions for the future), for example, love experiences (but not only). After we rejected Spain and chose Thailand, the tailed nucleus “removes from contentment” and stops serving inactive schemes (in this case, the likelihood of a trip to Spain) and on fMRI the activity of this department when demonstrating “Spanish predicts” (photos of attractions, hotels, advertising travel brochures, etc.) is significantly reduced. And this happens before and without the participation of the mind, although at the level of consciousness it manifests itself in the form of the fact that we evaluate the rejected choice more critically and negatively, and find it less preferable. This is all described in the Krylov fable about a fox and green grapes, and the fable is a retelling of the ancient Greek Aesop, that is, people have known this phenomenon for millennia. But the nuance is that it is not consciousness that gives orders to emotional reactions. Quite the opposite, this affective involvement fades away and consciousness drives explanations and cognitive schemes after the fact.

And, interestingly, it happens that consciousness is still reasoning and comparing, but in fact the brain has already made a decision. For example, our choice was influenced by the prospect of getting various pleasures, which are readily available in Southeast Asia, while in Europe they are expensive, and some can generally be used for a long time. We don't really want to think about it, and even more so to inform the tour operator / experimenter, but this affects the preference. What will be seen on fMRI is that consciousness is not yet in the know, but one of the options causes more excitement in the reward centers, and in this case, the tomogram can predict the final choice of a person (which is of the "free and conscious" type) with 80% probability. Moreover, it will seem completely sincere to a person that he has made a rational choice on the basis of his free will. Another example. Most people are right-handed. In a free choice - to press the key with the right hand or with the left, in 70-75% of people act with the leading hand (in this case with the right). At the same time, it is possible to influence the brain by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (and the TMS apparatus, by the way, unlike a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, is a very inexpensive and not complicated device). When influencing the right hemisphere, a "right-handed" person in 80% of cases presses the lever with his left hand. At the same time, he will be completely sure that he is doing this of his own free will.

That is, in some ways we greatly overestimate our free will. I would call this the "dispatcher effect". We are sitting at the train station, which is the terminal station of a very extensive and complex railway network. We report that "a train arrives on the 2nd platform from there, the train leaves there from the 5th track", and after we say this, this is how it happens. We spend our whole life in this control room and inevitably begin to think that the movement of trains occurs at our behest. We say that the train is coming now, and it is coming. We say that he will leave - and he leaves. The question arises - so who controls whom? And this is not to mention the fact that we do not look outside the station, and there is still a whole railway, and the main volume of cargo transportation is gloomy and slow-moving freight trains, which generally do not look at our clean passenger station and are out of our attention (and when, by mistake, some composition with oil and coal is brought under the arches, those present have a panic attack and all kinds of psychosomatics).

It may seem to some that all this reasoning emanates from fatalism, determinism and "there is no God, everything is allowed." In fact, there is nothing like that, friends look more fun. It's not that bad. On the contrary, everything is very very good. Nobody gave us the right to climb into a complex and delicate mechanism with our hands, but the ability to press the levers is an inalienable right and an honorable duty of our consciousness. What has been said many times and it's time to repeat again

We are not in control of our emotions, but in control of our behavior.

We are not able to create motivation for ourselves out of nothing, but we are able to pedal existing ones. We are limited in decision making and not limited in their implementation. Consciousness is not only the final node, it is also the highest node. Thousands of good and intelligible works are devoted to the fact that this is a terminal point, and that this is an “ultimate control” center is usually heard in parapsychological and pseudophilosophical chatter. People constantly focus on the possibilities of their consciousness to influence experiences and emotions, and consistently do not pay attention to the ability of their minds to modulate reality. Which, in general, is not surprising. People tend to focus more on the moments that are closer to them and in which they are affectively involved. And what can be closer than the inside of the cranium and what can cause greater experiences than the experiences themselves? There is no time but now, no place but here. And so, we begin to think with our blind and narcissistic brain, and inevitably we have to use a variety of distortions, simplifications, omissions, psychological tricks and irrational assessments, everything that is called cognitive biases. Usually they are viewed in a negative way, as mistakes that interfere with our adaptability, but in fact, the opposite is true - these are mistakes that help our adaptability. They can cause troubles and troubles (and often do), but by and large they are for our own good. Without these general rules, of which our mental activity mainly consists, the brain simply will not pull out the necessary array of information. We will not be able to think without them, our psyche will rise. But cognitive biases are biases. These are mistakes. They are normal, they are even necessary, we cannot do without them. But these are mistakes. There are times when they should be resorted to, and there are times when they should be discarded.

This is where we need sthenism. And self-awareness. And social intelligence. Let's call this skill. The ability to use your brain effectively is as much a skill as flying a helicopter or fencing with a rapier. That is, the skill is difficult, but nothing supernatural. It is not easy to learn it, but it is quite achievable. We will proceed from the assumption that all those present are ordinary people. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. And only I am not like that. I am a walrus. Gu-gu, gu-ju. I'm lying, of course. 85% of people think that they are different from others, and I am in this crowd. That is, it is clear that we are all different. And we are all the same. Neither an idiot nor a genius will read these lines, they will get bored and quit much earlier. You have a regular standard brain and a regular standard psyche. Within this, you can do a lot and influence in different ways, and in this sense it is understandable - we are all bright individuals and unique like snowflakes in a whirlwind, but we should not forget that ordinary cases are common, and standards are standard. If you are the lucky owner of a 2-room apartment in a house of series 1-464, you can demolish the internal partitions, turn it into a studio apartment with a designer renovation, make a loggia, even chip in with your neighbors to paint the facade. But all the same, you have a fucking Khrushchev on your hands, and there is nothing you can do about the gloomy predetermination of this fact. What can you do about it? Demolish partitions, paint the facade, attach a loggia, see above. Versailles still won't work, but you can double the original value. When ours win and the individual psyche is described in reliable and measurable terms, it will not look like a complex block diagram, it will look like a three-dimensional blob stretched over a dozen axes. It is convenient to think that we are a Lego constructor, because it is more convenient for the rational mind to organize and process information. It is inconvenient to think that we are a Lego constructor, because we are not a Lego constructor.

People don't just change. And for a reason - they also do not change much, and it always takes a lot of time and exceptional circumstances. By your own direct volitional decision, you will not make yourself a different person. If a person suddenly and without any external reason sharply and significantly changes his behavior and his thinking - most likely we are talking about some kind of psychopathology. If a young girl suddenly discovers a divine providence in herself, I will first of all think about the onset of schizophrenia. When an elderly neurophysiologist, professor and corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences suddenly turns into a pious old woman, I first suspect involutionary organic changes. And what if an educated and reasonable Jewish doctor suddenly begins to talk about a higher meaning? Well, I would think that Auschwitz was a very unpleasant place, and it must have been difficult for a person there. Moreover, personal worldview, religious, ethical and other convictions are rather superficial layers. But even at this level, it is already difficult to redo something. And the deeper you go to the center of the personality, the harder the core. We cannot change some fundamental, basic characteristics - what has happened, we live with that, people in this sense do not change. But for what is on the surface - for skills, behavior, intelligence, views - here you can influence within wide limits. A hundred-billion-dollar chorus of neurons sings us through our lives, and I'm not sure that many are able to change the plate, but I absolutely know that everyone has full access to the equalizer. And you can modulate the melody very, very widely. Not change, but modulate. Improve skill, hone the skill of ownership, improve the tool, make the tool more efficient and more efficient. Here's what we can do. In theory. Practically - even that most of us don't.

How to do it? Through gaining motivation. There are many competing theories of motivation, and I like Reis' model. I want to emphasize that this is a purely empirical model, obtained from the results of testing more than 6 thousand people, it has no theoretical basis. The flight identified 16 basic motivations. one. Adoption, - the need to both accept the world around and see the approval of others around. 2. Curiosityas a need for training and search activity 3. Food motivation. 4. Family, - the need for the upbringing of children and the education of a stable group 5. Honour- the need to show loyalty to the traditional and informal values of any clan / ethnic / social / subcultural group. 6. Idealism, - the need for social justice. 7. Independence, - the need for individuality manifestation 8. Social order- the need to have an organized, orderly and predictable environment. nine. The need for physical activity 10. Power, - the need to influence others and impose their desires and choices 11. Loving sexual need. 12. Preservation, - the need to collect and save valuables (both with a utilitarian purpose and within the framework of collecting). 13. Social contact - the need for friendly and other close interactions (not sexual and family). fourteen. Social status and significance. 15. Safety 16. Retribution, - the need to take revenge and win, punish their offenders and encourage helpers. As you can see, there is no money on the list. Why is there no money? Because money is not a motive. In fact, well, funny yellow circles that all the time disappear somewhere. A classic Caseian monetary illusion based on the tendency to perceive fiat money as a real material value. Money is paper and all that. A thousand words have been said about this too.

Meanwhile, money is an undoubted and obvious incentive, and one of the leading ones. How does this happen? This happens because money is neither a value, nor a reward, nor a motivation, but it is symbol and universal award designation … In neuropsychology, when describing typical stimuli, they even say primary reward (i.e. food, sex, and other basic hedonistic rewards) and monetary reward, which include all secondary social rewards. It would seem, well, the bourgeoisie, what to take from them, all social values are measured in coins. But in numerous experiments, monkeys, which cannot be suspected of carrying bourgeois-capitalist views, began to treat tokens in much the same way as we treat money. They stored, shared, changed, distributed and tore their throats. The brain automatically regards almost any social interaction as a set of uncertainties and probabilities. And in such conditions, the psyche enthusiastically grasps the opportunity to find some kind of stable stimulus and unchanging measured unit. So everyone loves money, be it a hundred dollar bill or a cowrie shell. Ask any person and he will say that he wants to become a millionaire. But he doesn't want to become a millionaire, he wants something different. He doesn't even want a red convertible with photo models, because the VAZ 2104 copes with the movement from point A to point B, and sex is completely free and available to everyone without restrictions.

All people are different and the basic motives are presented in different ways. Yes, I remember that people are the same, but they are not only the same, but also different. Some are more curious, some less. Someone is looking for the approval of others, someone is not. Social domination is important for someone, not so for someone. And when we talk about personal effectiveness, the first thing to decide is the issue of motivation. What the hell do we want? What do we want? No, we don't want money. "We want money" is "we are for all the good against all the bad." As if the question is shit, who would argue, but that's just - what exactly is good and against what exactly is bad? Any oligarch or top official has more money than he can eat. So what? Who was it stopping? They're not for the money. From the point of view of an ordinary North Korean, you are bathed in unimaginable luxury and wealth. So what? I can eat meat whenever I want, even every day, even in winter, I live in a warm room, all my children survive. Hell, I'm willing to pay money of my own free will to do grueling and unproductive physical labor, and I also consider it a dignity and envy people who are able to exhaust themselves more and more, and even hire special overseers to force them and forced! I'm crazy rich. People do not want money, people want comparisons in their favor for reasons that are meaningful to them. Moreover, the comparison is subjective, and the motive is objective. This is an eternal paradox - everything exists only here and now, and everything is cognized in comparison. We have only reality “as it is”, and we evaluate it as “before and after, it was, is and will be”. And I have a certain skepticism about traditional complaints that they say, "social elevators no longer work."Why don't they work? When did they work? Why should they work? And where and where should they take people from?

Social elevators never stopped, social elevators never existed, depending on the angle from which to view the situation. That it is unrealistic for an ordinary person to get into the ruling elite - well, Duc, but when was it possible? What kind of elite is this that you can enter from the street? If you have entered the elite, then most likely we are talking about LLC "Elita", which produces pvc double-glazed windows of the same name. A social lift is always a unique combination of personal qualities plus unique circumstances. There are no Jobs, no Prokhorovs, or even Putin's among us. It is always a fakin miracle multiplied by a fakin miracle, it does not work like a well-oiled mechanism. But influencing your efficiency, your social and / or personal success, step over a step, or two steps on a conditional social ladder or on a conditional scale of self-esteem, is quite realizable. Or three steps.

It can be learned and it can be taught. This is a task - what to do with your psyche as an instrument, and what to do with the surrounding reality, as the front of work for this instrument. And this is a whole thriving industry, from psychiatrists to business consultants, from coaches to marketers. Lots of people, lots of directions. Endless rivers of chatter and grains of intelligence. A pool of water in which rare black peppercorns float. But in general, all this apparently works and even helps, because people turn to, people pay, people have a request for this industry. That is, obviously, it makes sense. Some kind.

That is, when we talk about the "will to money", it should be understood that the will does not exist. And money doesn't exist. But the will to money undoubtedly exists. But this is a completely, completely different story.