Publications

Ramunė Dirvanskienė / photo by G. Staučė

LRT.lt

We often say that we make important decisions rationally, after thinking things through. But neuroscientists are increasingly questioning the role of the voice of reason. So what do we use more often - emotions, intuition, or learned patterns? We talk to Ramune Dirvanskiene, PhD in neuropsychology.

- Ramune, how much do we, as humans, make decisions based on rational reason and how much on emotions?

- According to classical theory, we make decisions in two ways - algorithmic and heuristic. Algorithmic is often referred to as the voice of reason - a logical, slow and detailed, comprehensive and impartial evaluation of information, where the optimal decision is made after weighing all available information.
Heuristic decisions, on the other hand, are quick, based on emotions, past experiences, attitudes and stereotypes, and there may be no evaluation of pros and cons. Heuristic decisions are often made unconsciously, intuitively, based on the voice of the heart.
According to this theory of decision-making, most of our choices are heuristic simply because they are quicker, simpler. They require fewer brain resources and are often our first choice, especially when the consequences of the choices are not important.
For example, if we decided algorithmically what to wear or how to brush our teeth every morning, we would never leave the house. This is why heuristics, although associated with rash decisions, are used so often.
Other scientific theories of decision-making argue that decision-making is generally an emotional activity. This is supported by neuroimaging studies showing that the limbic system, which is responsible for emotions, is activated during decision-making.
Other theorists therefore argue that, although gathering and comparing information are higher-level mental functions, there is always a clear emotional component to the decision on which alternative to choose. This is supported by clinical case reports: individuals whose emotional centres in the brain are damaged have difficulty making up their minds or change their minds frequently.

- How can we spot the stereotypes and automatisms that affect us when we could really be listening to ourselves more?

- We should always remember that both the situation and the people involved change. If a conversation with an interlocutor was unsuccessful in the past, it does not mean that it will be unsuccessful now. After all, you have changed, the interlocutor has changed and the world around you has changed. Change, internal and external, is constant. It is therefore worth pausing every now and then to consider whether an identical reaction is really appropriate in a changed situation, in a changed person. It has never hurt to pause and reassess the situation, giving it more objectivity.

- The column in which this interview will be published is called "For Intuitive Living" and is dedicated to cultivating an authentic, truer, more observant life. What is it that helps us most to achieve that authenticity in life?

- I taught social psychology at Vilnius University for a few years, and during my lectures I used to tell students how many external factors influence our behaviour. After this course, I became more attentive to these factors, I more often consider whether my motivation is internal or external, and I started to rely more on my own judgement and decisions. Now, if I make mistakes, I am at least more aware of the reasons behind them and can therefore correct the behaviour that led to them more quickly.

- How does neuroscience explain the importance of our intuition or sense of touch and the senses in general? Nowadays, we often hear calls to return from the mind to the body, to listen to it, because that is where we can get a glimpse of the real us.

- Without the senses there would be no perception. After all, in order for the nervous system to have something to process (for cognition or for feedback), it must receive stimuli from the senses, from sensorics. Our brain also acts as a predictive apparatus - we are not only reacting to our environment, but we are constantly trying to predict it. We see this on a neural level, as well, as the potential of a nerve cell rises in preparation for a possible arousal.

In cognitive neuroscience, intuition is interpreted as a prediction that determines what information we will look for in our senses to confirm it. Our attention is thus selective, based on guesswork - we tend to notice what we expect, and more often than not we expect what we have encountered in the past. We are not completely objective in our perception, and due to confirmation bias, much of the information that contradicts our guesses is simply not noticed.

https://rb.gy/okmbvi