{"id":1914,"date":"2013-01-30T23:03:16","date_gmt":"2013-01-31T02:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.subterfugios.net\/blog\/?p=1914"},"modified":"2013-01-31T11:17:07","modified_gmt":"2013-01-31T14:17:07","slug":"como-decidimos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.subterfugios.net\/blog\/como-decidimos\/","title":{"rendered":"Como decidimos"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pedir demiss\u00e3o? Terminar um relacionamento? Flocos ou creme? Frear ou desviar? Sorrir? Demonstrar? Conceder ou exigir?<\/p>\n

Decidimos o tempo todo. Nossas decis\u00f5es guiam nossas atitudes. As atitudes formam nosso comportamento. Pequenas e grandes decis\u00f5es acabam mostrando quem somos, ou gostar\u00edamos de ser. E como acontece uma decis\u00e3o? Como nosso c\u00e9rebro pensa, raciocina, sente e conclui como uma decis\u00e3o deve ser tomada? A ci\u00eancia j\u00e1 sabe como interagem o c\u00f3rtex pr\u00e9-frontal, as am\u00eddalas e outras partes do c\u00e9rebro para chegar a uma conclus\u00e3o?<\/p>\n

\"How Aparentemente, \u00e9 uma \u00e1rea cient\u00edfica em franca evolu\u00e7\u00e3o, mas j\u00e1 \u00e9 poss\u00edvel visualizar alguma l\u00f3gica no processo de decis\u00e3o. O livro How We Decide<\/em>, de Jonah Lehrer, discute sobre como as \u00e1reas de nosso c\u00e9rebro interagem para decidir. Jonah traz uma profunda discuss\u00e3o sobre as influ\u00eancias da raz\u00e3o, da emo\u00e7\u00e3o e a pr\u00f3pria intera\u00e7\u00e3o de uma com a outra. H\u00e1 exemplos de decis\u00f5es sob press\u00e3o, inconscientes, racionais, longas, instant\u00e2neas, geniais, certas e erradas.<\/p>\n

Esse foi o primeiro livro que li a fundo com o Kindle. Como o assunto me interessou muito, acabei relendo e destacando muitos trechos. Alguns deles, pe\u00e7o a licen\u00e7a de compartilhar com voc\u00eas e comentar. Naturalmente, nada substitui a leitura do livro, que recomendo. Mas, como a vida \u00e9 um flash e n\u00e3o temos tempo para tudo, ficam aqui algumas observa\u00e7\u00f5es.<\/p>\n

“Desire and reason are pulling in different directions. I see the right way and approve it, but follow the wrong.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Raz\u00e3o e emo\u00e7\u00e3o. Comer ou n\u00e3o aquela pizza e depois abiscoitar um petit gateau<\/em>? Sabemos o caminho correto, mas quem nos faz seguir o errado?<\/p>\n

Above that was the ego, which represented the conscious self and the rational brain. It was the job of the ego to restrain the id, channeling its animal emotions in socially acceptable ways.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Freud for dummies. Id s\u00e3o nossos instintos, emo\u00e7\u00f5es, desejos. O Ego \u00e9 nossa raz\u00e3o, respons\u00e1vel por controlar o Id e filtr\u00e1-lo para comportamentos socialmente aceit\u00e1veis.<\/p>\n

A brain that can’t feel can’t make up its mind.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aqui j\u00e1 come\u00e7a a parte mais t\u00e9cnica. A emo\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e9 parte fundamental no processo de decis\u00e3o. Sem emo\u00e7\u00e3o, n\u00e3o h\u00e1 decis\u00e3o. O c\u00e9rebro racional cria conjecturas, vers\u00f5es, alternativas. Mas \u00e9 necess\u00e1rio que algu\u00e9m d\u00ea a palavra definitiva. O c\u00f3rtex \u00f3rbito-frontal \u00e9 respons\u00e1vel por integrar emo\u00e7\u00f5es viscerais ao processo de decis\u00e3o. Pessoas que tiveram problemas e perderam essa fun\u00e7\u00e3o cerebral n\u00e3o s\u00e3o capazes de tomar decis\u00f5es. As emo\u00e7\u00f5es processam invisivelmente grandes por\u00e7\u00f5es de informa\u00e7\u00e3o e ajudam o c\u00e9rebro a assumir uma posi\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/p>\n

Este outro destaque j\u00e1 \u00e9 de outra parte do livro, que fala sobre o processo de aprendizado e como nossos erros marcam de forma profunda nossas mem\u00f3rias. E isso acontece n\u00e3o s\u00f3 de formar racional, mas tamb\u00e9m irracionalmente. O erro \u00e9 parte desej\u00e1vel e integrante do processo de aprender. Aqui, o livro de 2009 cita uma super tend\u00eancia sobre educa\u00e7\u00e3o infantil:<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, children are often taught the exact opposite. Instead of praising kids for trying hard, teachers typically praise them for their innate intelligence (being smart). Dweck has shown that this type of encouragement actually backfires, since it leads students to see mistakes as signs of stupidity and not as the building blocks of knowledge. The regrettable outcome is that kids never learn how to learn.<\/p>\n

Unless you experience the unpleasant symptoms of being wrong, your brain will never revise its models. Before your neurons can succeed, they must repeatedly fail. There are no shortcuts for this painstaking process.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

N\u00e3o tenhamos medo de errar.<\/p>\n

Aqui tem outro trecho interessante. As partes do nosso c\u00e9rebro se desenvolvem de maneira diferente, algumas mais rapidamente, outras menos. Nos adolescentes, essa teoria faz todo o sentido. Mentes que ainda n\u00e3o aprenderam a se controlar:<\/p>\n

More than 50 percent of U.S. high school students have experimented with illicit drugs. Half of all reported cases of sexually transmitted diseases occur in teenagers. Car accidents are the leading cause of death for those under the age of twenty-one. These bleak statistics are symptoms of minds that can’t restrain themselves. While the emotional brains of teens are operating at full throttle (those raging hormones don’t help), the mental muscles that check these emotions are still being built.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Agora um cl\u00e1ssico:<\/p>\n

(He likes to quote Louis Pasteur: “Chance favors the prepared mind.”)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

E agora um pouco sobre decis\u00f5es que devem ser tomadas exclusivamente pela emo\u00e7\u00e3o:<\/p>\n

There is such a thing as too much analysis. When you overthink at the wrong moment, you cut yourself off from the wisdom of your emotions, which are much better at assessing actual preferences.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Isso se refere a um trecho do livro que fala sobre testes cegos sobre alimentos. Vejamos um aqui. Alguns experts classificaram as melhores geleias dos EUA. Suponhamos que esta classifica\u00e7\u00e3o esteja certa. Essas pessoas entendem de geleia e sabem julgar qual geleia \u00e9 melhor. Agora, peguemos um grupo de leigos, uma amostra suficiente, e pe\u00e7amos a eles que provem as geleias e as classifiquem de acordo com sua qualidade.<\/p>\n

\"jamO grupo de leigos chega a um resultado praticamente igual aos experts. Isso n\u00e3o \u00e9 muita surpresa. Aparentemente, os experts estavam certos e os leigos conseguiram julgar bem.<\/p>\n

Ap\u00f3s esta primeira fase, faz-se um novo experimento de leigos, com outra amostra. A diferen\u00e7a \u00e9 que, a este segundo grupo de leigos, \u00e9 pedido que descrevam quais as caracter\u00edsticas os fizeram decidir por uma ou outra geleia. Aqui, sim, o resultado surpreende. Os leigos se perderam completamente no julgamento. O resultado foi diferente dos dois testes anteriores e a classifica\u00e7\u00e3o fez muito pouco sentido.<\/p>\n

A conclus\u00e3o direta aqui \u00e9 que, para julgar geleias, \u00e9 melhor confiar nas emo\u00e7\u00f5es do que no pensamento racional. Nosso c\u00e9rebro racional se perde quando h\u00e1 muita informa\u00e7\u00e3o para julgar. A n\u00e3o ser que tenhamos muita experi\u00eancia no ramo em que estamos decidindo, acabamos enganados pelo excesso de informa\u00e7\u00e3o:<\/p>\n

It’s long been recognized that the placebo effect is extremely powerful; anywhere between 35 and 75 percent of people get better after receiving pretend medical treatments, such as sugar pills.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

According to Shiv, consumers typically suffer from a version of the placebo effect. Since they expect cheaper goods to be less effective, they generally are less effective, even if the goods are identical to more expensive products. This is why brand-name aspirin works better than generic aspirin and why Coke tastes better than cheaper colas, even if most consumers can’t tell the difference in blind taste tests.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

For example, when Thaler asked people whether they would drive twenty minutes out of their way to save five dollars on a fifteen-dollar calculator, 68 percent of respondents said yes. However, when he asked people whether they would drive twenty minutes out of their way to save five dollars on a $125 leather jacket, only 29 percent said they would.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

The fragility of the prefrontal cortex means that we all have to be extremely vigilant about not paying attention to unnecessary information. The anchoring effect demonstrates how a single additional fact can systematically distort the reasoning process. Instead of focusing on the important variable\u2014how much is that cordless keyboard really worth?\u2014we get distracted by some meaningless numbers. And then we spend too much money.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

(Herbert Simon said it best: “A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.”)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Acho que uma li\u00e7\u00e3o aprendida aqui \u00e9 analisar decis\u00f5es que n\u00e3o devem lhe tomar tempo. Decidir de pronto n\u00e3o \u00e9 necessariamente ruim. N\u00e3o tentemos buscar vari\u00e1veis obscuras onde n\u00e3o h\u00e1.<\/p>\n

Agora uma curiosidade para os colegas condor:<\/p>\n

BACK PAIN IS a medical epidemic. The numbers are sobering: there’s a 70 percent chance that at some point in your life, you’ll suffer from it. There’s a 30 percent chance that you’ve suffered from severe back pain in the last thirty days. At any given time, about 1 percent of working-age Americans are completely incapacitated by their lower lumbar regions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Adiante, falamos um pouco sobre a evolu\u00e7\u00e3o da mente humana, no que diz respeito \u00e0s emo\u00e7\u00f5es e a moral.<\/p>\n

While psychopaths are prone to violence\u2014especially when the violence is used to achieve a goal, like satisfying a sexual desire\u2014their neurological condition is best defined in terms of a specific brain malfunction: psychopaths make poor\u2014sometimes disastrous\u2014moral choices.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

Psychopaths shed light on a crucial subset of decision-making that’s referred to as morality. Morality can be a squishy, vague concept, and yet, at its simplest level, it’s nothing but a series of choices about how we treat other people. When you act in a moral manner\u2014when you recoil from violence, treat others fairly, and help strangers in need\u2014you are making decisions that take people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings of others, sympathizing with their states of mind. This is what psychopaths can’t do.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

The evolution of morality required a whole new set of decision-making machinery. The mind needed to evolve some structures that would keep it from hurting other people. Instead of just seeking more pleasure, the brain had to become sensitive to the pain and plight of strangers. The new neural structures that developed are a very recent biological adaptation. While people have the same reward pathway as rats\u2014every mammal relies on the dopamine system\u2014moral circuits can be found in only the most social primates. Humans, of course, are the most social primates of all.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

We aren’t angels, but we also aren’t depraved hominids. “Our primate ancestors,” Greene explains, “had intensely social lives. They evolved mental mechanisms to keep them from doing all the nasty things they might otherwise be interested in doing. This basic primate morality doesn’t understand things like tax evasion, but it does understand things like pushing your buddy off of a cliff.”<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

During World War II, for example, U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall undertook a survey of thousands of American troops right after they’d been in combat. His shocking conclusion was that less than 20 percent actually shot at the enemy, even when under attack. “It is fear of killing,” Marshall wrote, “rather than fear of being killed, that is the most common cause of battle failure in the individual.” When soldiers were forced to confront the possibility of directly harming other human beings\u2014this is a personal moral decision\u2014they were literally incapacitated by their emotions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aparentemente, fomos evolu\u00eddos para fazer decis\u00f5es moralmente boas. N\u00e3o \u00e9 algo que \u00e9 desenvolvido pelo conv\u00edvio social, \u00e9 algo que nasce conosco. H\u00e1 certas a\u00e7\u00f5es que nossos c\u00e9rebros julgam como simplesmente ruins. E isso parece ter a ver com uma caracter\u00edstica exclusiva dos humanos (e primatas desenvolvidos): a empatia. Empatia \u00e9 a capacidade de imaginar o que o outro sente. Aos humanos “normais”, faz mal fazer o mal. E isso parece se dever ao fato de que nos colocamos no lugar do pr\u00f3ximo.<\/p>\n

Human minds are so eager to detect other minds that they often imbue inanimate objects, like computers and stuffed animals, with internal mental states.)<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

But here’s the lovely secret of altruism: it feels good. The brain is designed so that acts of charity are pleasurable; being nice to others makes us feel nice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Um pouco a frente, lemos sobre os contornos que nosso c\u00e9rebro racional faz para n\u00e3o admitir que est\u00e1 errado. Enxerguei-me muito nesse t\u00f3pico. Digamos que voc\u00ea tem uma posi\u00e7\u00e3o pol\u00edtica e algu\u00e9m cita algo errado que um membro de seu partido cometeu. J\u00e1 aconteceu com voc\u00ea? Mesmo consigo mesmo, tenho certeza que sua mente deu muitas voltas at\u00e9 encontrar uma justificativa plaus\u00edvel para salvar sua posi\u00e7\u00e3o. Veja esse estudo:<\/p>\n

During the first term of Bill Clinton’s presidency, the budget deficit declined by more than 90 percent. However, when Republican voters were asked in 1996 what happened to the deficit under Clinton, more than 55 percent said that it had increased. What’s interesting about this data is that so-called high-information voters\u2014these are the Republicans who read the newspaper, watch cable news, and can identify their representatives in Congress\u2014weren’t better informed than low-information voters.<\/p>\n

“Voters think that they’re thinking,” Bartels says, “but what they’re really doing is inventing facts or ignoring facts so that they can rationalize decisions they’ve already made.” Once you identify with a political party, the world is edited to fit with your ideology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nesse ponto, o livro fala sobre analistas pol\u00edticos americanos. S\u00e3o pessoas que explicam de maneira racional situa\u00e7\u00f5es altamente complexas envolvendo pa\u00edses, culturas, conflitos e centenas de outras vari\u00e1veis. Nos anos 80, foi feito um estudo sobre temas diversos de geopol\u00edtica, coletando a opini\u00e3o de analistas renomados. Depois de dez anos, percebeu-se que os analistas tinham um resultado pior do que o acaso. Isso mesmo. As perguntas normalmente tinham tr\u00eas respostas e o \u00edndice de acerto dos analistas foi de menos de 33%:<\/p>\n

When pundits were convinced that they were right, they ignored any brain areas that implied they might be wrong. This suggests that one of the best ways to distinguish genuine from phony expertise is to look at how a person responds to dissonant data. Does he or she reject the data out of hand? Perform elaborate mental gymnastics to avoid admitting error?<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

In other words, ignore those commentators that seem too confident or self-assured. The people on television who are most certain are almost certainly going to be wrong.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

It feels good to be certain. Confidence is comforting. This desire to always be right is a dangerous side effect of having so many competing brain regions inside one’s head. While neural pluralism is a crucial virtue\u2014the human mind can analyze any problem from a variety of different angles\u2014it also makes us insecure. You never know which brain area you should obey. It’s not easy to make up your mind when your mind consists of so many competing parts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aqui uma cita\u00e7\u00e3o \u00f3tima, d\u00e1 pra fazer uma camiseta:<\/p>\n

The default state of the brain is indecisive disagreement;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

O livro tira poucas conclus\u00f5es. A seguir, uma delas.<\/p>\n

The only way to counteract the bias for certainty is to encourage some inner dissonance. We must force ourselves to think about the information we don’t want to think about, to pay attention to the data that disturbs our entrenched beliefs.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

The same lesson can be applied to the brain: when making decisions, actively resist the urge to suppress the argument. Instead, take the time to listen to what all the different brain areas have to say.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Para evitar que nosso rumo de pensamento fique viciado, temos que dar lugar \u00e0 disson\u00e2ncia. \u00c9 preciso flertar com a ideia contr\u00e1ria.<\/p>\n

J\u00e1 nas conclus\u00f5es, saem algumas dicas de como se preparar para tomar as melhores decis\u00f5es. Ou pelo menos para n\u00e3o ser enganado por si pr\u00f3prio:<\/p>\n

“Use your conscious mind to acquire all the information you need for making a decision. But don’t try to analyze the information with your conscious mind. Instead, go on holiday while your unconscious mind digests it. Whatever your intuition then tells you is almost certainly going to be the best choice.”<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

As long as someone has sufficient experience in that domain\u2014he’s taken the time to train his dopamine neurons\u2014then he shouldn’t spend too much time consciously contemplating the alternatives.<\/p>\n

(…)<\/p>\n

If the emotional brain is a fancy laptop, stuffed full of microprocessors operating in parallel, the rational brain is an old-fashioned calculator.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Desert Essa \u00faltima frase \u00e9 bem emblem\u00e1tica do livro. Embora nosso c\u00e9rebro racional seja bastante flex\u00edvel, ele n\u00e3o \u00e9 capaz de processar decis\u00f5es com muitas vari\u00e1veis. Somos limitados. Por outro lado, nossas emo\u00e7\u00f5es cont\u00eam um emaranhado de conhecimento enorme e t\u00eam poder para process\u00e1-lo, mesmo de que forma incompreens\u00edvel.<\/p>\n

Bem, esta foi uma leitura disjunta e superficial de uma obra complexa e muito coerente. Espero que tenha servido para algo. No m\u00ednimo, para instigar a curiosidade. No meu caso, al\u00e9m de todo o conhecimento a que fui exposto, \u00e9 sempre bom saber que h\u00e1 gente genial estudando de maneira s\u00e9ria assuntos avan\u00e7ados, misteriosos e dogm\u00e1ticos como a mente humana.<\/p>\n