This is not a proof of something. It is is a way of interpreting things that have been proven by others or that have not been disproven. The value is that it offers a conceptual model of human decision-making that is more predictable and testable than other psychological models. This model is also strongly based on the emerging neurological design of the human CNS in ways that can tested by observation using modern PET, MRI techniques, etc.

So, I am not saying this is how the brain works in decision-making. I am saying this is a possible explanation for how it works that does not violate what we do know about the brain and that is derived from some of the latest discoveries. And, I'm saying that if the brain did work this way then here are the implications that can be tested. In that spirit I will not try to provide any detailed support. I will provide that support later depending on what parts anyone wants to challenge. To make that easier I'll just provide a numbered list of the more important elements of the hypothesis in a sort of descending order by significance - in the spirit of providing several things that can be easily challenged.

But first, a note. Websters defines paradigm as a) a pattern, example, or model b) an overall concept accepted by most people in an intellectual community, as those in one of the natural sciences, because of its effectiveness in explaining a complex process, idea, or set of data

From the first philosophical and psychological models of the brain, cognition has been the core activity around which most of those models have been built. They are based on the larger belief that humans are the thinking animal and that that is the most salient aspect of our mind.

Human voluntary behavior is largely seen as the result of the thinking process. Almost all descriptive or functional models of explanation start with the idea that our intellect is primarily responsible for what goes on in our brain.

When someone fails at something or when they disagree with us we like to say that they didn't do a good job of thinking. When they succeed or when they agree with us we are certain that they are highly intelligent thinkers.

I call this the cognicentric paradigm. It permeates most human sciences. Most psychological models are built around cognition and the search for impediments to cognition as explanations for poor decision-making or mental disease. Emotion and feeling are typically seen as results of thinking and as the most important of those impedients. Many therapies focus on modifying or controlling emotions as a way to allow a patient to get back on the track to good thinking and good decision-making, unimpeded by emotions.

This hypothesis turns that paradigm around and for reasons that the hypothesis explains, that makes it an uncomfortable idea to consider. According to this hypothesis a paradigm that we have integrated into our belief system is a special kind of higher order belief. It has the effect of causing us to compare any new ideas that we are exposed to - to it. If the idea does not fit this higher order belief we will have an emotional reaction that affects how we think about the idea. Instead of wondering how the new idea might possibly be valid, we will be motivated instead to think of ways that it could not possibly be. This is one of the testable implications of the hypothesis.

I am explaining this because we have some control over the emotions of our higher order beliefs if we are aware of them - and to encourage you temporarily to set aside that emotionally driven skepticism, as far as you can. To keep these posts as short as possible I'll state the hypothesis here and then list the elements and implications in the following post.



Behavior choice (decision-making) in humans is the result of a subconscious summation of somatic effects. These effects are automatically produced when mental images of contemplated behavior excite emotion-producing neural networks that attempt to predict the outcome of the behavior in terms of our happiness or survival. The neural networks that produce the somatic effects are located in brain areas variously responsible for our instincts, dispositions, memories of past events, beliefs, social instincts and intellectual conclusions.

Margaret