Recap: Learning

➡️ The brain builds models of the world to help you maximize reward (meet your needs) and minimize surprise 

• We build these models based on information from the senses

• When new information contradicts our current working model, we experience surprise (or prediction error)

• We update our working models of the world based on how confident we are in our prior beliefs vs the new information

• Older, more ingrained patterns of sensory information sometimes take longer to update than newer, less engrained models - though there are exceptions

➡️Our experience of the world is not reality, it’s the brain’s model

As the restaurant example yesterday hopefully helped you intuit, this brain modeling process happens differently based on the specific situation (states) and personal tendencies (traits). 

To wrap this chapter, let’s look at the core “settings” in this modeling process that determine how your brain processes new information, learns about the world and makes decisions.

Attention 

Some of us may not have even noticed the change in the food quality, while others would have had a hard time choking down the meal. Our sensitivity determines the threshold for needing to pay attention to unmet needs and prediction errors. 

Attention allows us to focus our energy and on prediction errors that rise above our tolerance threshold. The more sensitive we are, the lower the threshold and the more we have to deal with and attend to.  

Explanation

We rarely have complete and accurate information about errors, so our brain fills in the gaps by taking a best guess.

Individuals differ in their tendency to interpret surprises positively or negatively. 

▶️ One patron may interpret the change in pasta as a potentially positive event: “Huh, maybe the chef’s experimenting with a new recipe. Good for him for trying, but hope he does better next time.” 

▶️ Another patron may interpret it neutrally: “Huh, the chef must be sick, or the supply chain is disrupted. Better luck next time.” 

▶️ A third may interpret it as a fully negative event: “This restaurant is suddenly trash” or “these a**holes are trying to poison me.”

These explanations not only differ in valence — whether the surprise is positive, negative or neutral — but in whether they ascribe another human’s intention to the event — whether good (experimentation) or bad (poisoning).

Learning

People also differ in how these interpretations then update our model of the restaurant.

▶️  One patron, despite years of delicious meals, may have abandoned the restaurant after the first bad dish. This patron believes that the status of things can change rapidly, and therefore they are more confident that their latest experience of the restaurant reflects reality more than their prior beliefs.

▶️  Another patron may keep going back for years, holding onto the belief that this restaurant is their favorite and nothing will replace it. This individual is highly confident in their existing model and doesn’t put much credence in new information. Things don’t really change…so why should I change my mind about them?

Behavior

Even if two people came to the same conclusion about the restaurant — they both agree it’s not as good as it used to be — they may act differently. One person may immediately start researching new restaurants, while another may keep coming back for months despite knowing full well the food wasn’t as good.