The architecture of thought
The anatomical theory of the mind suggests that thoughts or rather the information that goes to formulate them are stored in connections between neurons. This is interesting and came to light for me during a game with Friends. The object of the game was to first make a choice:
Null or total.
In the case of total: you must try to get as many similar associations as possible with your friends when given a prompt word. The one with the most associations at the end wins. In the case of null (which most people find a little more difficult) one must avoid writing the same words as friends and try to keep their score as low as possible.
For example the prompt word could be “leaf”. You would then have 10 seconds to write down all the associations that come to mind before comparing them with the rest of the group. These could be anything from obvious words like “plant” “green” “tree” “nature” if you opted for “total” to more abstract or technical ones like “chlorophyll” “shade” “waterproof” or “growth” if you opted for “null”.
Each time a friend also has the same answer you get a point as do they. But it reveals something about the way we think. We can be highly lateralised - thinking in the most obscure way possible to connect two seemingly unrelated concepts or we can think objectively and in a compact discrete highly interrelated format.
The anatomical theory explains the “total” objective of the game but has difficulty explaining the “null” objective. This is where creativity and lateralisation comes into play.
What are your thoughts on what this game reveals? Are some people more lateralised or objective than others? What does it mean for the quality of thought that we have and how our brains work? What does it mean for those that struggle to come up with many associations at all?
Null or total.
In the case of total: you must try to get as many similar associations as possible with your friends when given a prompt word. The one with the most associations at the end wins. In the case of null (which most people find a little more difficult) one must avoid writing the same words as friends and try to keep their score as low as possible.
For example the prompt word could be “leaf”. You would then have 10 seconds to write down all the associations that come to mind before comparing them with the rest of the group. These could be anything from obvious words like “plant” “green” “tree” “nature” if you opted for “total” to more abstract or technical ones like “chlorophyll” “shade” “waterproof” or “growth” if you opted for “null”.
Each time a friend also has the same answer you get a point as do they. But it reveals something about the way we think. We can be highly lateralised - thinking in the most obscure way possible to connect two seemingly unrelated concepts or we can think objectively and in a compact discrete highly interrelated format.
The anatomical theory explains the “total” objective of the game but has difficulty explaining the “null” objective. This is where creativity and lateralisation comes into play.
What are your thoughts on what this game reveals? Are some people more lateralised or objective than others? What does it mean for the quality of thought that we have and how our brains work? What does it mean for those that struggle to come up with many associations at all?
Comments (6)
The process of both "null" and "total" appears to me as the exact same one. In the case of null, you will still follow a chain of associations the same way you would with "total". The difference is that "null" has an added layer: Instead of just taking the chain of association as it is, you put it through a filter: You remove the associations that you deem as most common from the chain.
Given only 10 seconds to come up with associations, there's indeed a difference between thinking in terms of "total" and "null". I believe we retrieve from memory differently. I think sorting out happens -- for null, we start rejecting associations that are common and that come to mind fast. I'm pretty sure "plant", "green", "tree" come up very, very fast and we reject those while thinking in terms of null. So, we start associating the 'fast' words with other words that aren't so common -- dirt, pot, growth.
With me, it would reveal the difficulty pulling words from my memory at my age. :worry:
The situation at the moment might present a difficulty -- stress, tiredness. Or just mental block, which happens to everyone.