The Internal Battle between Past and Present

Do you care more about your experiences in the present or the memories you will have in the future?

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics, explores this question. He clearly distinguishes between the “remembering self” and the “experiencing self.” The former is characterized by all the memories one has accumulated over a lifetime, while the latter deals solely with the present moment. One may expect (or at least hope) that these two selves remain consistent with one another, but Kahneman shows that there are many instances in which they are in conflict.

One famous study by Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber, and Redelmeier had participants put one of their hands in painfully cold water (14°C) while placing their other hand on a keyboard to rate the amount of pain they were experiencing. In the short trial, participants put their hand in the cold water for 60 seconds. In the long trial, participants put their hand in the cold water for 90 seconds. The first 60 seconds of the long trial was the same as the short trial, but the last 30 seconds differed in that the temperature rose by 1°C. Objectively, the 2^nd trial was more painful because it included the same initial 60 seconds of pain with an additional 30 seconds.

The subjects were then asked which trial they wanted to repeat. While the shorter trial was less painful, “80% of the participants who reported that their pain diminished during the final phase of the longer episode opted to repeat it, thereby declaring themselves willing to suffer 30 seconds of needless pain in the anticipated third trial,” (Kahneman 383).

Kahneman explained this result using two hypotheses that he had been trying to prove:

• The peak-end hypothesis essentially stated that people would remember a painful event based on the average of the worst part and the end.
• The duration neglect hypothesis stated that people would ignore the length of the trial when rating total pain.

This elegant study is one of many that show that human beings are often not as rational as they are frequently portrayed. It particularly brings up many questions that will impact the medical field. Should a doctor add time to a painful procedure in order to end at a more pleasant point, thereby improving the patient’s stored memory, even if that means intentionally inflicting more pain?

The duration neglect hypothesis does not only apply to painful memories, but also has serious implications for positive ones. For example, if planning a beach vacation and deciding between 1 week and 2 weeks, you might have a better overall memory of the trip if you plan a fun-filled 1 week vacation that finishes on a high note as opposed to a 2 week long vacation that seems to drag on at the end.

While the practical implications do pose many ethical dilemmas that have not yet been resolved, Kahneman and Tversky clearly show that we may not know ourselves as well as we think we do.

What do you think? Which matters more: the elusive experiencing self or the persistent remembering self?

For further reading: 

The book: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The original research paper: http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/~perlman/0903-EmoPaper/KahnemanFredricksonSchreiberRedelmeier_1993_WhenMorePainIsPreferredToLess.pdf

Capitalizing on Creativity: Revolutionizing Education

America’s education system needs help. While websites like Khan Academy and Coursera have vastly expanded the dissemination of knowledge through the use of technology, it still feels like a major part of the picture is missing. How can policy makers and teachers alike use the growing body of information on child development to improve the learning environment for children and pave the way for a successful future for both individuals and the nation as a whole? In essence: how can we use cognitive science to improve education?

On April 2, 2013, I attended a talk by Dr. Sharon Thompson-Schill, Director of Penn’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Psychology. She spoke at the World Café Live, and the atmosphere was much more informal than I was accustomed to when attending Professor Thompson-Schill’s class. While it was amusing to see my professor start speaking with a beer in her hand (she joked about it as well), it in no way detracted from an excellent speech about the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to study the function of the frontal lobes

TMS is a noninvasive method that uses electrical currents to activate or deactivate certain parts of the brain. This relatively new technology is extremely useful when working with human subjects because it leaves no lasting effects and is approved by the FDA. Studies in the past have shown that when the frontal cortex (the area of the brain right behind one’s forehead) of adults is inhibited using TMS, subjects become more creative. Young children experience extended frontal lobe immaturity naturally as part of the developmental process, which essentially means that they are more creative than the vast majority of adults.

This also means that children learn very differently than adults. As Professor Thompson-Schill stated, “A long period of [frontal lobe] immaturity is really optimized for learning in an unstructured environment. If that’s really what it’s good for, then we are not capitalizing on that by the way we teach our children.” Then she joked, “You know, 20 years from now, maybe I’ll have something concrete to say about that and our educational systems.” While there may not be new curriculums planned out yet, there are other researchers at Penn who are focusing not only on understanding how children learn to understand the world around them, but also on how to better teach them. 

I recently met with Dr. Deena Skolnick Weisberg whose lab at Penn focuses on both the “development of imaginative cognition” and “the nature of adults’ and children’s abilities to reason scientifically.” One of her goals is to “bolster children’s latent scientific reasoning skills,” and she believes that embracing children’s characteristic imaginations is one way to do this. She and the members of her lab are currently in the process of developing a system to measure a child’s scientific reasoning skills. They will then create and test a series of exercises intended to improve these skills to determine what works best. While science and creativity are often viewed as diametrically opposed, Dr. Weisberg pointed out that they share common skills, such as the ability to look at a situation from multiple perspectives and envision many potential explanations for a single event. When I asked her if she had any examples of the types of exercises she and the members of her lab may use, one idea she proposed was telling a child two slightly different versions of similar stories with the goal of helping the child realize that a single event can be viewed in many ways. I look forward to seeing the results of her research in upcoming years.

Both Dr. Thompson-Schill and Dr. Weisberg offered unique insights and inspired me to think about the current state of education and the implications cognitive science has for its future. While concrete proposals may still be in the works, it is reassuring to know that there are researchers addressing this pertinent issue. Far too many well-meaning teachers have forced young children to sit obediently and listen to formal lectures, going against their very nature. Even though alternative educational methodologies like Montessori exist for younger children, they are not widespread among public schools. Hopefully, our society will break away from the accepted norms and learn to not only appreciate, but to truly embrace children’s creativity.