The Mind is Flat by Nick Chater
The more time I have spent learning about the human brain, the more I have been inundated with bold proclamations about how layered our minds are and how capable we are of juggling many complex thoughts in parallel. We think of ourselves as having a coherent set of desires, values, and beliefs that define who we are and are always active somewhere in the hidden depths of our mind. In The Mind is Flat, Nick Chater turns that assertion on its head, suggesting in fact that we are just master improvisers, constantly making real-time fabrications in an effort to maintain consistency with previous fabrications, and that our minds are only able to do one thing at a time.
The central theme of the book is that we don't possess subconscious desires and motives, and that our thoughts and actions emerge from moment-to-moment improvisations rather than a coherent, underlying narrative. Drawing on research from psychology, neuroscience, and AI, he presents evidence that our brains are constantly constructing and revising our beliefs, desires, and emotions as we experience the world.
Chater proposes that our brain functions not as an interpreter, but as a confabulator. Essentially, our emotions can be seen as an extended version of the Kuleshov effect, a film technique in which an ambiguous facial expression is perceived differently based on the context. Chater references experiments in which participants attributed their externally-induced adrenaline to various emotions such as romantic attraction, anger, or excitement, depending on the situation they found themselves in.
While I enjoyed the book overall, there was a lot missing. Unfortunately, as with much of the popular science category, this whole book would have been far more effective as an extended blog post. Chater repeats the same premise ad infinitum in various poetic ways without adding any depth to the argument. The book is interspersed with reference to fascinating mental tricks and optical illusions which, while neat, don't ever form a smoking gun to give any rigorous evidence to this theory. Chater has cherry-picked a couple of scientific findings and used them to make speculative inferences that are difficult (to his credit, probably impossible) to prove. More alarmingly, as critics have noted, he completely omits the role of genetics in shaping human behaviour and cognition. This oversight gives an incomplete picture of the complexities of human cognition and the influence that genetic and environmental factors have on mental processes.
The main missing ingredient is the 'so what?' of it all. If we are to believe Chater's hypothesis, what should we take away and adjust going forward with our flat minds? Here are my thoughts:
Recognising that our thoughts, desires, and emotions are fluid and context-dependent can help us cultivate greater self-awareness. This should lead us to be more open to personal growth and change, as we acknowledge that our current beliefs and feelings are not set in stone. This is not a new concept and has been the cornerstone of CBT and various ancient schools of thought before that. I have always thought of humans as constantly evolving and capable of radical and lasting change, and this could be a conceptual shift that allows people to reinvent themselves, embrace cognitive flexibility, and move towards our aspirational selves. Aside from embracing CBT, I won't dive into the implications for mental health because I think the flat mind theory does not stack up here (see The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk).
Accepting that our emotions and beliefs are situational can help us better understand and empathise with others. In an increasingly polarised world, people cling onto their strongest beliefs as markers of their personalities, however it may well be that these beliefs are not at all strongly held, but entirely context dependent and open to change.
Chater's perspective can help us approach decision making with more flexibility and adaptability. Acknowledging that our thoughts and feelings are not pre-determined allows us to consider a wider range of options and be more open to changing our minds when new information arises. In my experience, society demonises changes of opinion (such as the dreaded political "u-turn"). I believe that the freedom to change your mind in response to new information should be normalised, and accepting the flat mind theory may be the catalyst for embracing Bayesian inference and encouraging people not to stubbornly stick to their assertions in the face of contradictory evidence.
Insofar as the flat mind theory helps us reconceptualise the potential for change, adaptability, and growth, despite being highly speculative and lacking rigour, it is a useful lens through which to navigate the complexities of life.
The Kuleshov Effect is a psychological phenomenon in film editing, named after Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov, which demonstrates the power of visual context in shaping audience interpretation. It occurs when two unrelated shots are edited together, leading viewers to infer a connection or meaning that isn't inherently present in the individual shots. This effect showcases the importance of juxtaposition and sequencing in filmmaking, as the audience creates associations and emotional responses based on the perceived relationship between images, rather than solely on the content of the images themselves.