Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« City Council Will Vote on Bill to P… | A Critical Overview of The Stranger… »

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Science Bruce Hood's Self Illusion

Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

My favorite science podcast, Ginger Brown's Brain Science Podcast (my favorite because Brown asks great questions, gives her guests room to explain their complicated ideas or books, and she doesn't spice her programs with those silly sound effects and bursts of geek humor that Radiolab has popularized), has an interview with Bruce Hood, the author of The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.

Basically, and rather uninterestingly, Hood tells us something that Morpheus tells Neo in the movie The Matrix: Reality is actually an illusion. We get that. What we don't get, and the truly profound thing that Hood points out, is this:

And there's a real shift in this sense of identity in children. Below about two years of age few of us have any memory of identity—or personal memories, for that matter. This is a common phenomenon known as infantile amnesia. And it used to be thought that this was somehow an immaturity of the brain to store memories. But we know that's not the case; we know that much younger babies can store memories for quite considerable periods of time.

But they don't have a sense of self identity. And I think that's what's going on. I think without a sense of who you are as a character, then it's very difficult to integrate information into meaningful memories that become stored as your personal identity.

Even as a child is developing, their emerging sense of self is changing quite radically. So initially, in very general terms, the child is fairly egocentric, if you like; so they don't really fully appreciate that others have different mental states, different opinions, or different perspectives.

Even as a child is developing, their emerging sense of self is changing quite radically. So initially, in very general terms, the child is fairly egocentric, if you like; so they don't really fully appreciate that others have different mental states, different opinions, or different perspectives. But as they reach their second to third birthday, they start to shift to a growing awareness that they're surrounded by others who have different opinions and expectations.

Can you see the stunning implications of this view of things, view of child development, human mental development? A child is self-centered (or ego-centric) because they lack a sense of self. Meaning, a child is not self-centered because they have too much self—me, me, me absolute me and this nipple. It is because of an absence of self. The self is a profoundly social construction. There is no sense of it without a sense of others. Others and self can not be separated. You only become self-decentered when there is a self.

FacebookShare

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Search and replace "child" with "Republican" and it works just about as well (except Republicans hate nipples).

Posted by also on September 19, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Except I have many memories of being a baby. I remember specific events from when I was a few months old. So, you're speaking generally. I think for most children, little else happens for them that's worth remembering. How many adults can remember what they did a week ago, a month ago, a year ago to the day?

Posted by Pope Peabrain on September 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Wow! I actually get this. And find it compelling. Thanks! Though I still enjoy RadioLab.

Posted by stating the obvious on September 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM

This is almost exactly the concept of "spiritual enlightenment" as recognized by those who've actually experienced it and aren't simply trying to sell lovey feel-good books. The recognition - not conceptually, but viscerally - that there is no such thing as a "self." That it is indeed just a construct and illusion of the mind and its methods of labeling and referencing experiences.

It might make more sense, Charles, if you revisited your understanding or definition of "ego." An infant isn't self-centric since they have no concept of a self. Instead they're responding to their direct experience: I'm hungry, that's shiny, I'm happy, I'm pooping, etc... Our own ego reinforces its illusion by seeing similar egos elsewhere.

"You" is a tricky fucking little lie that is near-impossible to get over. Great to see research finding similar conclusions.

Posted by diggum on September 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Sounds really intellectual and almost believable, until one gets further and further into hard neuroscience. (There was some German scientist who has done considerable amount of research similarly, but has neglected some major steps along the way.)

One of many negative responses: Jennifer Anniston neuron.

Posted by sgt_doom on September 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Lovely post, Charles. Your last paragraph on this is my new favorite thing you've ever written.

Posted by Zuulabelle

on September 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

This isn't all new. Object Relations theory was on this since the 50s. Winnicott said that there is no such thing as a mother, or of a baby - only the mother-infant dyad. And check out Mahler et al., "The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant".

Also, like diggum said, the non-existence of the self is at the essence of true spiritual teachings.

Posted by Jude Fawley on September 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Charles, I'm seeing the third paragraph twice in the excerpt. And "veiw" should be "view" while you're in there. Good post even with the typos.

Posted by David from Chicago on September 19, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I can't listen to Radiolab because the goofy sound effects and bizarre editing annoy me so much. I don't understand how it became a popular show.

Posted by fsb on September 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM

@9, I find RadioLab's editing annoying too. I feel like it's produced with the idea that adults can't pay attention for more than 5 seconds without a weird noise or jokey banter.

Posted by Jude Fawley on September 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

I think Radiolab is fun. If I were going to be annoyed by anything it would be the fake conversations in which the two hosts pretend to suddenly learn about something even though we're mid-way through a show on the topic which they've no doubt prepared for. But even with that...lighten up! Plenty of podcasts for everyone! Plus if Charles hates it, it must have some merit.

Posted by g on September 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM

@11, yeah I was going to mention the "dialogue" being annoying too, but decided not to. Anyway, everyone has their tastes - for instance, I like most stuff Charles likes.

Posted by Jude Fawley on September 19, 2012 at 11:54 AM

@6: that was sarcasm, right? As the last pgh says, "A child is self-centered (or ego-centric) because they [sic] lack a sense of self," then contradicts: "You only become self-decentered when there is a self." It's Charles' ponderous daily attempt to fill up white space with equally vacuous words and draw a paycheck for it.

Posted by menace2society on September 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM

@12, the they was intended.

Posted by Charles Mudede on September 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM

@ 13, also do you know how to read? how is that a contradiction? if you are going to be smart, be smart.

Posted by Charles Mudede on September 19, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Charles, excellent post. I also love the BSP podcast for the very same reasons and thought this was a fabulous episode.

@9, 10 & Charles

I feel exactly the same about dumbass RadioLab. I am not a 5-year-old child and I resent being treated like one. It's "cute and clever" if you have adult ADD, are jacked-up on uppers, or are in kindergarten. I will never listen to those two dipshits even if it's on a topic I'm interested in.

Posted by Confluence on September 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM