Mehhanistlikust ja mentalistlikust andekusest

IF 0.1 0 ART
Amar Annus
{"title":"Mehhanistlikust ja mentalistlikust andekusest","authors":"Amar Annus","doi":"10.12697/BJAH.2016.11.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent advances in cognitive neurosciences compellingly suggest that the human brain does not have a single cognitive system, but two parallel cognitive systems. These two systems normally blend more or less perfectly in the human mind. Only the failure of one reveals the existence of the other in a way that would otherwise be difficult to discern. This research has established that “human beings have evolved two parallel ways of thinking. One, which you might call people-thinking , mentalistic cognition – or more simply mentalism – is wholly concerned with understanding human beings, their minds, motives, and emotions; the other, which by contrast you could call t hings-thinking or mechanistic cognition , is concerned with understanding and interacting with the physical, non-human universe of inert objects“. In other words, the social brain works entirely differently from mechanistic thinking, using altogether different neural pathways. The current view in the cognitive sciences supports the dual process theory that distinguishes between analytical and intuitive styles of information processing. These two styles – analytical and intuitive – broadly correspond to mechanistic and mentalistic cognition modes. Analytical processing involves abstract, rule-based, logical and deliberate thought, whereas the intuitive style is implicit and contextualized, taking advantage of associations.These two styles can be viewed as the polar ends of a single continuum, best understood as processing modes which individuals move in and out of in a continuous manner, depending on the situational dynamics.However, these two cognitive styles can become the preferences for cognition and learning if one prevails over the other. The general discussions on higher cognitive processes usually do not cite evidence from the studies of clinical population groups. In my view, such discussions are necessary. In a clinical condition, the cognitive preference inevitably becomes a bias, even a strong bias for thinking and behaviour. The clinical conditions have genetic and epigenetic causes, even if these are only partly known. According to the Extreme Male Brai n theory explaining autism, the continuum of cognitive capabilities extends between the natural faculties of empathizing and systemizing in the human brain.In neuroscience studies, the term anti-correlated networks of the brain has been coined to describe the phenomenon of alternating activation, in which mechanical tasks were able to deactivate the regions associated with social reasoning, and social tasks deactivated the regions associated with mechanical reasoning.The first mode of thinking is mechanistic and operates in a more bottom-up manner, being highly sensitive to the type of stimulus. However, the mentalizing system is more top-down, and is influenced by the cognitive context and much less by the surface characteristics of stimuli. The Imprinted Brain Theory describes the diametrical model of the social brain connecting the two cognition modes with mental illnesses. This model establishes a continuum of the intellectual capabilities of the social brain, extending from high mentalism in the psychotic spectrum to low mentalism in autistic spectrum conditions. Accordingly, human talents can be divided into two large groups – these with excellent people skills and those with elevated mechanistic skills. Because of anti-correlation, both groups have deficiencies in the respective opposite domain. Autistic savantism is an example of elevated mechanistic and less than average mentalistic capabilities. The imprinted brain theory suggests that a reversed pattern of elevated mentalistic talent with reduced mechanistic abilities is found in psychotic savantism, a previously unsuspected condition. The mentalistic kind of knowledge tends to be ideological, contextual, holistic, top-down, centrally coherent and globally connected. Mechanistic thinking is wired to find insights and patterns on the local level, and tends to be non-contextual, reductionist, bottom-up, and noncentrally coherent. Numerous clinical studies have shown an increased local processing style in autistic spectrum conditions, whereas the psychotic spectrum exhibits an increased global processing bias. The global style has an advantage in social tasks and the local processing bias in mechanistic tasks. A genius is someone who has elevated levels of talent in both modes of thinking.","PeriodicalId":52089,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Art History","volume":"11 1","pages":"145-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/BJAH.2016.11.08","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Art History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/BJAH.2016.11.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent advances in cognitive neurosciences compellingly suggest that the human brain does not have a single cognitive system, but two parallel cognitive systems. These two systems normally blend more or less perfectly in the human mind. Only the failure of one reveals the existence of the other in a way that would otherwise be difficult to discern. This research has established that “human beings have evolved two parallel ways of thinking. One, which you might call people-thinking , mentalistic cognition – or more simply mentalism – is wholly concerned with understanding human beings, their minds, motives, and emotions; the other, which by contrast you could call t hings-thinking or mechanistic cognition , is concerned with understanding and interacting with the physical, non-human universe of inert objects“. In other words, the social brain works entirely differently from mechanistic thinking, using altogether different neural pathways. The current view in the cognitive sciences supports the dual process theory that distinguishes between analytical and intuitive styles of information processing. These two styles – analytical and intuitive – broadly correspond to mechanistic and mentalistic cognition modes. Analytical processing involves abstract, rule-based, logical and deliberate thought, whereas the intuitive style is implicit and contextualized, taking advantage of associations.These two styles can be viewed as the polar ends of a single continuum, best understood as processing modes which individuals move in and out of in a continuous manner, depending on the situational dynamics.However, these two cognitive styles can become the preferences for cognition and learning if one prevails over the other. The general discussions on higher cognitive processes usually do not cite evidence from the studies of clinical population groups. In my view, such discussions are necessary. In a clinical condition, the cognitive preference inevitably becomes a bias, even a strong bias for thinking and behaviour. The clinical conditions have genetic and epigenetic causes, even if these are only partly known. According to the Extreme Male Brai n theory explaining autism, the continuum of cognitive capabilities extends between the natural faculties of empathizing and systemizing in the human brain.In neuroscience studies, the term anti-correlated networks of the brain has been coined to describe the phenomenon of alternating activation, in which mechanical tasks were able to deactivate the regions associated with social reasoning, and social tasks deactivated the regions associated with mechanical reasoning.The first mode of thinking is mechanistic and operates in a more bottom-up manner, being highly sensitive to the type of stimulus. However, the mentalizing system is more top-down, and is influenced by the cognitive context and much less by the surface characteristics of stimuli. The Imprinted Brain Theory describes the diametrical model of the social brain connecting the two cognition modes with mental illnesses. This model establishes a continuum of the intellectual capabilities of the social brain, extending from high mentalism in the psychotic spectrum to low mentalism in autistic spectrum conditions. Accordingly, human talents can be divided into two large groups – these with excellent people skills and those with elevated mechanistic skills. Because of anti-correlation, both groups have deficiencies in the respective opposite domain. Autistic savantism is an example of elevated mechanistic and less than average mentalistic capabilities. The imprinted brain theory suggests that a reversed pattern of elevated mentalistic talent with reduced mechanistic abilities is found in psychotic savantism, a previously unsuspected condition. The mentalistic kind of knowledge tends to be ideological, contextual, holistic, top-down, centrally coherent and globally connected. Mechanistic thinking is wired to find insights and patterns on the local level, and tends to be non-contextual, reductionist, bottom-up, and noncentrally coherent. Numerous clinical studies have shown an increased local processing style in autistic spectrum conditions, whereas the psychotic spectrum exhibits an increased global processing bias. The global style has an advantage in social tasks and the local processing bias in mechanistic tasks. A genius is someone who has elevated levels of talent in both modes of thinking.
机械和心理天赋
认知神经科学的最新进展令人信服地表明,人类大脑并不是只有一个认知系统,而是有两个平行的认知系统。这两种系统通常在人的头脑中或多或少完美地融合在一起。只有一方的失败才能以一种难以辨别的方式揭示另一方的存在。这项研究证实,“人类进化出了两种平行的思维方式。一种,你可以称之为人的思维,心灵主义认知,或者更简单地说是心灵主义,它完全关注于理解人类,他们的思想,动机和情感;另一种则相反,你可以称之为事物——思考或机械认知,它关注的是理解和与物理的、非人类的、由惰性物体组成的宇宙相互作用。”换句话说,社会性大脑的工作方式与机械性思维完全不同,使用的是完全不同的神经通路。目前认知科学的观点支持双过程理论,该理论区分了分析型和直觉型的信息处理方式。这两种风格——分析型和直觉型——大致对应于机械型和心理型的认知模式。分析处理涉及抽象的、基于规则的、逻辑和深思熟虑的思维,而直觉风格则是隐含的、情境化的,利用联想。这两种风格可以被看作是单一连续体的两极,最好的理解是个体根据情境动态以连续的方式进出的处理模式。然而,这两种认知风格如果其中一种优于另一种,就会成为认知和学习的偏好。关于高级认知过程的一般性讨论通常没有引用临床人群研究的证据。在我看来,这种讨论是必要的。在临床条件下,认知偏好不可避免地成为一种偏见,甚至是对思维和行为的强烈偏见。临床条件有遗传和表观遗传的原因,即使这些只是部分已知的。根据解释自闭症的极端男性大脑理论,认知能力的连续性延伸到人类大脑中自然的移情能力和系统化能力之间。在神经科学研究中,人们创造了“大脑反相关网络”一词来描述交替激活的现象,即机械任务能够使与社会推理相关的区域失活,而社会任务则使与机械推理相关的区域失活。第一种思维方式是机械性的,以一种更自下而上的方式运作,对刺激的类型高度敏感。然而,心智化系统更多是自上而下的,受认知情境的影响,而受刺激表面特征的影响较小。印记脑理论描述了社会大脑的截然不同的模型,将两种认知模式与精神疾病联系起来。这个模型建立了社会大脑智力能力的连续统一体,从精神病谱系中的高心智主义延伸到自闭症谱系条件下的低心智主义。因此,人类的才能可以分为两大类——具有出色的人际交往能力和具有较高的机械技能的人。由于反相关,两组在各自的相反领域都存在不足。自闭症专家主义是机械能力提高和低于平均水平的心理能力的一个例子。印记脑理论认为,在精神病性智者症中发现了一种相反的模式,即心智能力的提高与机械能力的降低,这是一种以前未被怀疑的疾病。唯心主义的知识往往是意识形态的、背景的、整体的、自上而下的、集中连贯的和全球联系的。机械论思维倾向于在局部层面上寻找见解和模式,并且往往是非上下文的、还原主义的、自下而上的、非中心连贯的。许多临床研究表明,自闭症谱系条件下的局部加工方式增加,而精神病谱系表现出增加的整体加工偏见。整体风格在社会任务中具有优势,而在机械任务中具有局部加工倾向。天才是在这两种思维方式上都有很高天赋的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: THE BALTIC JOURNAL OF ART HISTORY is an official publication of the Department of Art History of the Institute of History and Archaeology of the University of Tartu. It is published by the University of Tartu Press in cooperation with the Department of Art History. The concept of the journal is to ask contributions from different authors whose ideas and research findings in terms of their content and high academic quality invite them to be published. We are mainly looking forward to lengthy articles of monographic character as well as shorter pieces where the issues raised or the new facts presented cover topics that have not yet been shed light on or open up new art geographies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信