I’ve studied Psychology, Neuroscience and Human Behavior for 10+ Years. AMA.

[The Abundant Man]

What produces consciousness?

Electrical signals and chemical reactions in your brain

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[papi016]

You may logically not want kids, but everything about your biology from sex to falling in love is designed to persuade you otherwise. The human species has not made it this far by ‘not wanting kids’

Further info: Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene explained

Interesting

 

[Ayanle Farah]

Jordan Peterson is 100x more successful than you will ever ever ever be. So thank you.

Anyway, if you don’t have a question, please go to another thread. Thank you.

Jordan Peterson has a net worth of $1.5M as of 2018. I'll be 100x more successful than him.

Anyway, I see you've been around for a while since 2015, so my question is: What have you done related to entrepreneurship?

 

[ChrisV]

Jordan Peterson has a net worth of $1.5M as of 2018. I'll be 100x more successful than him

1.5m because he’s just gaining fame like.. this year. As time goes on his brand is just going to grow. In a few years that number will be way higher than 1.5.

But regardless, if you ever have a new worth higher than Jordan Peterson’s, I will literally... literally, literally... eat my shorts.

I don’t know what the legality of these things are but if there’s any legally Binding way to make a contract in a forum: I hereby legally agree to eat a large portion of my shorts if the above poster is ever more successful than Jordan Peterson.

Now please stop trolling my thread.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The Abundant Man]

1.5m because he’s just gaining fame like.. this year. As time goes on his brand is just going to grow.

If you ever have a new worth higher than Jordan Peterson’s, I will literally... literally, literally... eat my shorts.

I don’t know what the legality of these things are but if there’s any legally Binding way to make a contract in a forum: I hereby legally agree to eat my shorts if the above poster is ever more successful than Jordan Peterson.

Now please stop trolling my thread.

Why do you hate on Jordan Peterson so much? So hostile...

 

[ChrisV]

Why do you hate on Jordan Peterson so much? So hostile...

I like Jordan Peterson a lot. I’m defending him. I think he makes a lot of really great points and is a great teacher.

 

[Ayanle Farah]

1.5m because he’s just gaining fame like.. this year. As time goes on his brand is just going to grow. In a few years that number will be way higher than 1.5.

But regardless, if you ever have a new worth higher than Jordan Peterson’s, I will literally... literally, literally... eat my shorts.

I don’t know what the legality of these things are but if there’s any legally Binding way to make a contract in a forum: I hereby legally agree to eat a large portion of my shorts if the above poster is ever more successful than Jordan Peterson.

Now please stop trolling my thread.

Thanks for the motivation, I'll make sure to mention you when the day comes.
Btw, you didn't answer my question.

What have you done related to entrepreneurship?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

What have you done related to entrepreneurship?

Couple books (that were actually a little popular).. Web design biz, small biz helping people install smarthome equipment. But that doesn’t matter. This thread is about psychology and people who want their questions answered. Not for you to troll in. Or for me to feed trolls. So I guess I’m just as guilty. oh well..

 

[ChrisV]

1. If we actually do, why does do Pain Points impact us at 2x the rate of Pleasure Points?

People are wired to pay more attention to negative information than positive. Historically in hunter/gather times if a caveman came in contact with a lion it was more disastrous than him missing a reward, say an apple patch.



The rest of your question I’ll get to in a minute.

 

[ChrisV]

1. What's the biggest force that changes people? or maybe, how do the following impact change in personality, mannerisms, etc.:
   1. being around people different than you
   2. being in a static environment
   3. aging
   4. External stimuli like commercials and news
   5. Microdosing / Psychedelics
   6. ???

Okay, I’m not sure how to answer that. I feel like there’s something behind that… like there’s another question behind those.

1. Is a change in personality possible, or do we have a narrow corridor we can wiggle around, based on our genes?

Genes are nothing lol. Genes only encode proteins and you can do a lot about the expression of those proteins. Biohacking is an emerging phenomenon, and I use a service called SelfDecode to read my genes (you send in a sample, it gets analyzed and you get the raw data which you can read,) and when you know your genes you can see what you’re deficient in, and really screw with your own biology.

But for the non-biohacker… yea, it’s a narrow corridor. It’s actually disturbing how narrow it can be. Messing with your biology is big, which is why it’s become so F*cking huge among silicon valley billionaires.

1. What causes relapses in new habit formations?

Elaborate if you can

1. Do people really want different things, or is there an underlying mechanism for all decisions? (I understand the wanting to mate, survive, and pass on genes. Let's go 1 level above that.)

Ummm.. yes and no. There are a lot of universals. But people do it in different ways

Okay example:

Everyone wants high social status, but depending on their social group that high status will be shown if different ways

Skateboarders might organize themselves into who can do the coolest tricks, wealthy people might organize themselves by who makes the most money, teachers might organize themselves by who’s voted “best teacher.” Everyone cares about status. If a group emerged that said they didnt care about status, a status would emerge based on who said they cared the least about status. It’s unavoidable in mammals.

But what people want is more objective than people think. Like you know how people say that physical beauty is subjective? That’s almost complete bullshit. Guys want a woman with .7 Waste to Hips ratio, and for the most part beautuiful is beautiful. There are some differences, but beauty certainly isn’t in the eye of the beholder.

1. What's a lesser know, yet highly important fact about human nature that you know?
2. ... about marketing psychology?

If there were any ‘law’ in Psychology, it would be as such: “People take action based on the expected reward of that action.”

A human will perform a behavior if he/she believes there’s a possibility of pleasure, and he/she will avoid a behavior if he/she believes there’s a possibility of pain.

Again, people take action based on the expected reward of that action.

That applies more than ever to Marketing because if someone buys something it’s because they expect a reward from that action. using Fastlane terminology: “People take action based on the expected VALUE of that action.”

Fastlane philosophy is totally in line with psychology as a field. Especially Skinnerian behaviorism. It’s complex, but if you want further explanation I wrote a post here:

The master key to changing habits and behavior for good.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ApparentHorizon]

Okay, I’m not sure how to answer that. I feel like there’s something behind that… like there’s another question behind those.

Not sure how to reword that. Feel free to interpret it as you see fit.

1. What causes relapses in new habit formations?

Elaborate if you can

Things like triggers that cause you to go back to the old way, and waning motivation/drive.

This is GOLD

Skinner was able to get animals to perform all kinds of complex behaviors by stringing together rewards. He was able to get pigs to put money in a piggy bank. He was able to teach Pigeons to play ping pong.

Everything humans do is because we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain.

Read that again. Notice it says “we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure.” We do not react to the event or stimulus itself, but of our perception of it. It is our thoughts about a event that creates the response, not the event itself.

The lesson here is: If we can change our perceptions of what’s pleasurable and painful, we can change our actions.

Our brains weigh the pros and cons of any given action, and whichever side has more weight on it will be the side that wins, and in a case like this gentleman we would want to weaken, unlink and minimize the fear of rejection while strengthening the perception of reward in meeting nice women with whom he may be compatable. This gentleman can be taught to easily speak with women by decreasing the perception of pain [fear] and increasing perception of pleasure [meeting a nice woman,] and can actually be taught to enjoy it.

 

[ChrisV]

Electrical signals and chemical reactions in your brain

Didn’t wanna go there, lol.

Looking at it purely scientifically: yes.

But then you have to ask yourself if you believe that’s all there is to life. This is a complex topic and scientifically we’re just starting to understand consciousness. I mean three are a number of reasons I shied away from getting into all this.

 

[The Abundant Man]

Didn’t wanna go there, lol.

Looking at it purely scientifically: yes.

But then you have to ask yourself if you believe that’s all there is to life. This is a complex topic and scientifically we’re just starting to understand consciousness. I mean three are a number of reasons I shied away from getting into all this.

I wonder what part of the brain thought this up?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Not sure how to reword that. Feel free to interpret it as you see fit.

Things like triggers that cause you to go back to the old way, and waning motivation/drive.

This is GOLD

What’s Gold? The blog post? Yea, I figured it was relevant.

Yea and there are huge lessons for Marketers too.

Everything humans do is because we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain.

Read that again. Notice it says “we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure.” We do not react to the event or stimulus itself, but of our perception of it. It is our thoughts about a event that creates the response, not the event itself.

So check it.. here’s the lessons for marketers. In a perfect world, consumers would know exactly which product was best suited for them. They would know which ones meets their needs best and which ones were total . They would never have to return products that weren’t right for them, they would never get swindled , and there would be no need for chargebacks. They would just know what products they need.

If the rule were:

Everything humans do is because that action will help them gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain.

Then people would just buy the best item. They would automatically know. Marketing would be unnecessary.

But they’re not psychic so, that’s not the rule. The Golden Law is:

Everything humans do is because they perceive that action will help them gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain.

And if I Had to elaborate more on that:

Everything humans do is because they perceive that action will help them gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain, and the reward we believe we will receive will outweigh the costs we believe we will incur.

A man buys hair styling gel that costs him $5, but he believe’s it’s going to make him look cool, so there’s a positive tilt.

Lets say the marketers said “This shit is made from rare daffodils from the himalayas and will literally make women remove their panties and throw them at you in Starbucks”

He’s like HOLY SHIT WOW I’M GETTING A GREAT VALUE PROFIT

I mean come on.. even aside from being the coolest guy since John Wayne he can ever sell all the panties women are throwing at him on the internet and make triple his money back in minutes!

But then when he puts it on and goes out the ladies think that it smells like rotting sewage. Turns out Himalayan daffodils actually need to be refrigerated and this company neglected that step. Now the perceived value has a NEGATIVE tilt. You know.... considering he smells like shit.

But nothing about the product changed, just his perception. And if he tells his friends about his experience they’ll have bad perception about the brand.

So how do you market? Get people to perceive that buying that product will help them gain reward or avoid pain. That’s why Ads show people having fun with the product. You can imply that Coca-cola makes people happy. And implying it helps more than telling customers. Showing > telling.

You can really use this to F*ck with people and make them believe they’re getting more value than they’re actually getting. There are a few problems with this approach A) it’s immoral and unless you’re a sociopath, your morals will haunt you and it won’t be worth the money. (Note the Value skew here too? The pleasure of the money doesn’t outweigh the pain of having to look at yourself in the mirror knowing you’re a turd... yet another example of the Golden Law of Psych in action) the next problem is, B) you’re going to gain a shit reputation. Word of mouth is going to spread and everyone is gonna know that your shitty hair gel smells like rotting boogars and makes your hair look like it’s playing Flappy bird.

All of your revenue is going to have to rely on advertising (not very fast lane since it makes it harder to make it passive) and your ability to convince people your watery daffodil soup will actually hold their hair. You’re chasing money. Where if your ACTUAL value somewhat matches your the value you imply by marketing, you don’t have to feel like a swindler, you don’t have to chase money and the income will be passive from it. Unless you decide to fan the flames with advertising.

Now the opposite is true with marketing too. A good product that’s poorly marketed will screw you up too.

Again, everything humans do is because we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain. I’m gonna say it a million times since it needs to be drilled into our heads.

A good product with poor marketing is when that action will help that person gain pleasure/reward, but they don’t perceive/believe so... and since our action is based on PERCEIVED reward, not actual reward, it will cause people to not take action.

So people will but if they believe it will cause them pleasure.

You can use this knowledge for good or evil. You can make people believe they’re getting more value than they are @MJ DeMarco talks about the Lustig’s fake money printing machine in his books. He made people perceive they would get more reward than they were actually getting, and since perceived reward causes action.

Further reading:

Value (marketing) - Wikipedia

 

[ApparentHorizon]

I wonder what part of the brain thought this up?

It's a conspiracy man. Your brain doesn't want you to know what it's up to.

I say that jokingly, but after actually writing it, there's some truth in that.

The brain doesn't want you to think. It doesn't want you to think outside the box, to exert effort. That takes energy, and you should be as efficient as possible. That's why patterns and monotonous rituals are easy, and change is hard.

That's the primitive brain, if you will.

That's what separates us from animals. The ability to self discipline and force a new habit.

perceive

m*****f***

This changes everything. (in my mind anyway)

That's why bro marketers exist. The end product just has to be good enough. (aka Selfish Gene)

But the marketing has to promise the world.

From the wiki:

Functional Value: This type of value is what an offer does, it's the solution an offer provides to the customer.

Monetary Value: This is where the function of the price paid is relative to an offerings perceived worth. This value invites a trade-off between other values and monetary costs.

Social Value: The extent to which owning a product or engaging in a service allows the consumer to connect with others.

Psychological Value: The extent to which a product allows consumers to express themselves or feel better.

I understand Social Value is a product having a primary effect on a person's social value. However, over the past couple of weeks, I can't shake the notion that anything anyone does, is for social value.

 

[lludwig]

You may logically not want kids, but everything about your biology from sex to falling in love is designed to persuade you otherwise. The human species has not made it this far by ‘not wanting kids’

Further info: Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene explained

Same applies to your mate. Most women (assuming you aren't gay) will want a child even if they say initially no. The biological urges are stronger in women. They only have short period of time to conceive. Of course you could MGTOW but I assume most people want a mate of some sort.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Mattie]

Same applies to your mate. Most women (assuming you aren't gay) will want a child even if they say initially no. The biological urges are stronger in women they only have short period of time to conceive. Of course you could MGTOW but I assume most people want a mate of some sort.

I don't know there's a short time to conceive. Women have babies at every age from teen age to even during menopause. I would say that's a long span of the opportunity to conceive. People used to have huge families. Today we just control it with birth control and choose not to get pregnant.

 

[lludwig]

I don't know there's a short time to conceive. Women have babies at every age from teen age to even during menopause. I would say that's a long span of the opportunity to conceive. People used to have huge families. Today we just control it with birth control and choose not to get pregnant.

Technology has helped but compared to males which can have children from teen to dead it is much different. Even with technology, it becomes increasingly more difficult as a woman gets past 35 to get pregnant, plus complications for the woman and the baby.

 

[ChrisV]

What's a lesser know, yet highly important fact about human nature that you know?

I have another probably controversial one: Human behavior is very mathematical and calculable.

I don't know there's a short time to conceive. Women have babies at every age from teen age to even during menopause. I would say that's a long span of the opportunity to conceive. People used to have huge families. Today we just control it with birth control and choose not to get pregnant.

Problem is: the older a woman gets the more risk of an unhealthy baby. After 35 years old it’s considered a High-risk pregnancy.




Edit...

it becomes increasingly more difficult as a woman gets past 35 to get pregnant, plus complications for the woman and the baby.

Yea, what he said

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ApparentHorizon]

I have another probably controversial one: Human behavior is very mathematical and calculable.

I touched upon this in the simulation thread. Do we have freewill. I'm cautiously saying we don't.

As individuals, it may be debatable.

As a group? Patterns easily emerge:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~neill/papers/mlss2012.pdf

 

[lludwig]

I touched upon this in the simulation thread. Do we have freewill. I'm cautiously saying we don't.

As individuals, it may be debatable.

As a group? Patterns easily emerge:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~neill/papers/mlss2012.pdf

Patterns yes, outright simuations and no freewill no.

If this were the case then economics would be an outright science and would always be right.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Patterns yes, outright simuations and no freewill no.

If this were the case then economics would be an outright science and would always be right.

I think we can agree on patterns, but we're still discovering mathematical concepts, and AI is still in its infancy. Given enough time, I think we can get close to modeling individual behavior, at the very least.

James Harris Simons - Wikipedia

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Free will is another can of worms. If Someone presses me and forced me to give an answer I would have to say “it’s complicated.”


But i will definitely say with 100% certainty that UNRESTRAINED, unlimited free will definitely doesn’t exist.


Beyond that, I’ll keep my opinions to myself. I’ve seen this topic argued ad nauseam, and it’s just something you can’t prove no matter how hard you try. It’s a matter of perspective.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Here's an interesting one that recently came out, about the brain: Procrastinators and Do-ers are shaped differently.

Actual paper: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

There Are Fundamental Differences Between The Brains of Doers And Procrastinators

TLDR:

"Thus, people with higher amygdala volume appear to be more state oriented and therefore tend to hesitate to initiate an intention and tend to delay the beginning of tasks without any good reason," the authors explain in their paper published in Psychological Science.

So instead of just being lazy or unambitious as often assumed, procrastinators may simply be more risk-averse.

"Due to a low functional connection between amygdala and dorsal ACC, this effect may be augmented, as interfering negative emotions and alternative actions might not be sufficiently regulated".

This was a good question in the comments: Is it possible to rewire these and go from procrastinator to do-er?

 

[ChrisV]

higher amygdala volume

Yep, the answer is right there. The amygdala is the fear center. So basically those people process fear stronger than others, which makes sense.

This is interesting. Something I’d want to research further.

This was a good question in the comments: Is it possible to rewire these and go from procrastinator to do-er?

Can you change the brain to go from a procrastinator to a doer? The answer is a resounding YES. Whether changing stuff about the Amygdala is the answer, I’m not sure. I’m not sure if the Amygdala differences is a cause or an effect, but I wrote a thread on this a while ago:

What's the difference between Slackers and Go Getters? The answer may have to do w/ brain chemistry.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Long story short, there's a not-well-understood brain structure called the "claustrum" that is buried deep within the brain, but terminates neurons that reach many other parts of the cerebral cortex. A lot of researchers (including Francis Crick -- one of the guys who received the Nobel Prize for discovering the DNA double helix) think that the claustrum may be the gatekeeper for consciousness.

Okay, I need to clarify... It really depends on what we mean by ‘consciousness.’ There’s a lot of research into what areas of the brain cause the perception of consciousness, etc

But okay... let’s say it’s 2099. We build a robot that literally has every ability a human has. It can process information, hold conversations.. in fact, if you spoke to one you wouldn’t even know you were talking to a robot.

That robot would have movement. But it would not be ‘life.’

Look arounds you. Look at your computer or Smartphone. You have a first person point of view.

But who is in there?

Who is it that is driving that body?

In the robot, there is nobody actually in there. You can punch it in the face and it will feel no pain. Becasdue there’s no one in there to feel pain. There’s no driver to that car.

I mean I’m sure we’ll find the part of the brain that allows us to perceive life, but does it really answer “who is in there?” Is it really just electrical impulses between neurons? I don’t think Science is qualified to answer that. I just don’t think it’s an answer you can answer with Science.

 

[Niptuck MD]

great thread really thought provoking questions here. a whole topic can be done on scandinavian women, by far the hardest to understand.

 

[GatsbyMag]

great thread really thought provoking questions here. a whole topic can be done on scandinavian women, by far the hardest to understand.

What's so difficult about understanding scandinavian women?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[rogue synthetic]

For anyone who doesn't mind an academic answer to this question, here's a paper he wrote (his dissertation, actually) that sums up one of the leading theories of what part of the brain is responsible for consciousness:

https://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-05122008-115234/unrestricted/Mathur.pdf

Long story short, there's a not-well-understood brain structure called the "claustrum" that is buried deep within the brain, but terminates neurons that reach many other parts of the cerebral cortex. A lot of researchers (including Francis Crick -- one of the guys who received the Nobel Prize for discovering the DNA double helix) think that the claustrum may be the gatekeeper for consciousness.

You know it's amazing how much we've learned about the brain, and how much we are still learning now... and how the stuff we're trying to explain... things like consciousness, feelings, experiences, free will... is ancient, pre-modern stuff.

It's like expecting our best current physics to explain the concepts that people were using to explain the world in 300 BC. Causality ain't what it used to be.

Probably the main problems facing this line of thinking is the conflict between the two "worlds" of concepts.

You've got what the physical sciences show us, on one side.

Then you've got the old human ways of understanding, on the other.

The problem is bridging the divide. Can it be done? Some people think, no, and we shouldn't bother.

Some people say, sure, all the neuroscience is showing is us how the usual mental/psychological concepts work just the way we use them.

Either way, we shouldn't expect a neurological theory to explain, say, an experience of the color blue, or a choice to do F instead of G, any more than we'd expect thermodynamics to predict the next president.

The real question then is whether neurological discoveries are going to contribute to our understanding of how we normally think, speak, and act... or whether it's going to get rid of it all together, replacing it with some new entirely neurological ways of talking.

 

[ChrisV]

No offense, but everything you've written above (and what you've written in some previous posts in this thread) sounds less-than-rigorous.

I’m purposely being non-rigorous. Know your audience.

"What degree of skepticism you should use?" Dude, you should be skeptical of EVERYTHING you read. Regardless of if I have 10 PhDs on the subject. Check the citations. If you’re skeptical about something, google it. Ask yourself if it makes sense to you. If someone makes a claim, look up the actual paper.

If you have to know I have some formal and informal background in it. But that doesn’t matter. Everything I’ve said thus far is just common sense or easily verifiable. Are there any specific claims you’re skeptical of that I need to provide citations for? Because if you’re skeptical about something you should be asking for EVIDENCE... nothing else. So if there’s a claim you need a citation for I’d be happy to do my best.

In terms of rigor, This is an Entrepreneurship forum, not the Neuroscience subreddit. If i said “Motivation relies on dopaminergic pathway that projects from the VTA to the nucleus accmbens” people would be like ‘cool story, bro.’ No one here cares. I’ll save that shit for Reddit or my Facebook groups. Instead you need to simplify it and put it in a way your audience understand. “People are motivated by pleasure and pain.” They don’t need to know if it’s Serotonin, Dopamine, Oxytocin, or stress hormones like Cortisol, Ephinepine, etc that are the specific sources of it. It’s irrelevant to people wanting to know marketing or basic human motivation. I would lose folks. Trust me, I get drunk and talk about the brain all the time. Peoples’ eyes glaze over.

This isn’t an academic community and by being academic I would just lose folks.

But yes, in terms of the latest research on consciousness, Last I read is exactly what you posted. We have identified a region that could very well be the seat of consciousness.

I said earlier in the thread exactly what you said.

Neuroscience is starting to find the parts of the brain responsible for consciousness and there are evolutionary theories, etc...

I mean you want me to name the specific region? On an Entrepreneurship forum? Words like “Caudate Nucleus” might as well be chinese to people wanting to learn marketing.

And truthfully, I’m not that up on the topic of consciousness to even write a rigerous answer. I actually forgot the brain region that they were researching until you mentioned it. It’s not really what I’m interested in. I’m interested in understanding why people do what they do. Research on consciousness doesn’t really help me answer that, so I generally ignore it.

I don’t know that this forum, with people wanting to learn marketing is the best place to talk about specifics either.

And again, I’m purposely trying to shy away from the subject. A) The research is in it’s infancy and B) It’s controversial. My reply was more of a philosophy answer than a hard science answer. We were actually just discussing this in another thread. If the brain is a mechanical device guiding human behavior or if it’s just a mans to an end.

What's the difference between Slackers and Go Getters? The answer may have to do w/ brain chemistry.

It’s taking a mechanical view of the brain, and I think there’s more to it than that.