Neuropossibility

The human brain is an incredibly complex and diverse organ.  The most recent estimate is that the brain contains 86 billion neurons, and each neuron has the potential to make tens of thousands of synaptic connections with other neurons.  This means that there are well over 100 trillion possible synaptic connection that can be made in the brain, and countless neural pathways.  

With the sheer number of potential connections, it is easy to understand that no two brains are the same.  Despite this diversity, there are inevitable similarities as well.  And where there are similarities, there are statistical norms and averages. Prominent patterns have emerged over time creating a definition for what is normal, for what is the expected outcome based on averages.  This does not mean that average is 'good' or 'better.' Average is nothing more than a mathematical probability.

Even with all of the complexity and diversity of the human brain, prominent patterns have emerged over time. The neurotypical brain is a brain that has forms, structures and processes that fall within the statistical norm in certain categories.  When they fall outside the statistical norm, they can be referred to as non-neurotypical, neuroatypical, neurodivergent, or more colloquially; strange, odd, different or weird.

The term 'normal' is often used synonymously with words like average, typical, standard or appropriate.  In this case, 'abnormal' would be better or worse than average, atypical, unusual, special, or inappropriate.  But this is a false definition, because any two things are going to be different from each other.  These differences offer a variety of challenges as well as opportunities and are more often subjective based on perspective.

Beyond what is considered neurotypical, patterns will emerge. Methods of processing information, behaviors, or observable actions may manifest outwardly, making them more readily identifiable and divisible. More observable differences create more perceived separation, and new patterns emerge which are used to further assign individuals into categories creating generalized classifications and labels according to associated traits.

Someone who is introverted, is autistic, or has ADD, or someone who experiences hyperthymesia or dyspraxia might have common traits which are similar to others of that subgroup. Or they may not.  They may have traits similar to others outside of the subgroup.  Or they may not.  Imagine a Venn diagram of nearly eight billion circles of varying shapes and sizes, one for each human being on the planet, laid out on a single image.  It be would full of overlap and outliers.  A mosaic of human potential in which each person shares some traits with one group and some traits with others.  

Imagine a box of clear marbles.  They may vary in size or have other unique characteristics, but they all share the common trait of clarity.  If you add another clear marble, it easily falls into conformity with the rest.  But, add a red marble and it becomes easily identifiable.  Even if it has a similar shape or density to other marbles in the box, because it does not conform to the most common identifiable characteristic of the rest, it will inevitably be set apart from the rest. The clear marbles may have other characteristics that make them different but they all share an easily identifiable trait. The red one is more different, a judgement based on a feature that has been determined as most relevant.    

Our species has a penchant for patterns and order.  Class systems, cliques, hierarchies are all social constructs used to place people into groups that can be identified, organized and labeled.  We name the groups, then we come up with terms for what is outside those groups. The term "on the spectrum" denotes something separate from the majority, when in reality, every single human being on the planet is on the spectrum of neuropossibility.  In light of this, the range of human potential goes beyond our ability to calculate.  Within this range of opportunity, patterns will inevitably emerge, but patterns are not rules.  Nor are they standards of what is acceptable and what is not.

The spectrum of human neural development is not a linear spectrum. It is a multidirectional patchwork of trillions of potential outcomes and possibilities ranging from how the brain is physically formed, to how neurotransmitters are produced.  From how it functions and processes information to how it changes and adapts as a response to outside stimuli.  The potential outcomes are incalculable.

While we cannot ignore differences, we can be aware of which differences we are more likely to accept and which we are not.  While we may weigh out some unifying factors as more important or more valuable, the only single unifying factor that we all share is that we are all different. 

The Corner of Efficiency and Laziness

If you consistently seek out the path or least resistance, you will inevitably find yourself at the bottom. 

Nielsen Norman Group is a research and consulting firm that was founded by Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman in 1998.  On their website, they have a list of clients that they have worked with since that time including companies like Google, Visa, National Geographic and The Smithsonian. In 2006, Nielsen published an article based on study of eye tracking patterns in which he introduced the "F-Shaped Pattern of Reading the Web." In essence, the F-shape is the result of reading the headline at the top of the page, skimming the left hand side with horizontal movements down the page at points of interest.

Imagine yourself reading the headline first then skimming the first few words of each paragraph, and stopping briefly on the ones that seem most relevant or interesting.   In his article, he implied that readers will not fully read a text, but focus on the the first two paragraphs and sub-headings and bullet point information. Instead of reading for depth, or to gain as much information as possible, readers are usually only looking for a few key ideas and then moving on, usually to post a comment about how much they agreed or disagreed with it.

The F-Shaped pattern of skimming a text is not the only time-saving method that is used when accessing information online.  There are several others, including the layer-cake pattern, spotted pattern, bypassing pattern an others, each designed to help the reader minimize interaction cost, the sum of efforts required to attain a goal. The driving force behind these patterns is to maximize the potential rewards while expending the least amount of time and energy to do so. It is only the commitment pattern in which an individual exert energy to fixate on all the content and read all of the material presented.

Henry David Thoreau wrote "the cost of a thing is the amount of what I call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run."  Usually, even this quote is ironically truncated into "the price of anything is the amount of life you pay for it." And most, if not all living creatures on this earth are usually trying to minimize this interaction cost, trying to get as much as they can for as little as possible, whether it be time, effort, work, money, or energy.

This is the principle of least effort, and it is a principle of life at almost every level.

When certain cells move through the body, such as white blood cells or metastatic cancer cells, they choose the path of least resistance through the tissue.  Researchers have proven this by placing these mobile cells in a "maze" of different size pours. These cells would test each pour size and then follow the largest of the choices, which would be the easiest to travel through. Researches studying how E. coli adapts to treatment through ampicillin has found that it will evolve and mutate in different ways depending on the concentration of the antibiotic, effectively choosing the one that requires the least amount of "cost" to the cell to make adaptations to survive.

If something is too complex or has too little reward it is not worth the effort. 

-I'm not even going to try to make an origami swan

In the animal kingdom, several animals typify the principal of least effort as a way to survive and thrive in a harsh world. The principle of least effort is about conserving energy or being as efficient as possible.  Examples include spotted turtles who spend winters near the bottoms of ponds and rivers and shunt their blood flow to vital organs, allowing them survive for five months without eating or breathing, penguins who waddle because walking requires too much of the energy that is required to stay warm in freezing temperatures, or birds and marine animals which use an undulating pattern allowing them to spend large amounts of time coasting downward with little or no effort.  These animals are being as efficient as possible with their energy expenditure.

This idea of being as efficient as possible, is not without its danger.  Whether viewed as the principal of least effort, or simply being as efficient as possible, this parsimony also removes the benefits of having to adapt through effort.  Anthropologists studying the evolution of two different human ancestors and the development of jaw muscle and tooth structure found that despite having different diets, both developed similar musculature and teeth.  The development was sub-optimal for the species, but workable for their diets because it required less adaptation.  It wasn't suited for the diet, but good enough without going through the rigors of adaptation.

Similar adaptations, or lack of adaptations have occurred with much more drastic results.  These include the vestigulation of certain traits, structures, or behaviors over time when they are not used.  This might include the loss of eyes in certain species of fish through epigenetic adaptation.  Simply put, because they did not use their eyes, they eventually disappeared from the species. Another example include flightless birds who at one point in history were capable of flying, but lost the ability simply because they no longer needed to do it.

When an activity lacks enough challenge, when it crosses the line from engaging to boring, the value that is attached to the reward also also diminishes and the skills or attributes required to accomplish it atrophy.  This is why as human beings develop, we usually find less enjoyment in activities that once kept us entertained as children.  In video games, once a level is mastered we seek for something more challenging, when we are able to ride a bike with training wheels, we quickly desire to take them off.  Yet, when we consistently are faced with activities that require no effort, are too easy, we lose desire to continue with it, even leaving rewards behind. In addition, and even more of a detriment to ourselves, we can also lose the necessary skills or knowledge we gained to become proficient in that specific area.  The term commonly used is "rusty."

If something is too easy, we do not feel a sense of accomplishment and are quick to drop it.

-Folding a piece of paper in half is boring so why even practice?

The question of whether these changes are overall net losses, or overall net gains depends on how you assess what is valuable and what is not. For human beings living in today's world, it goes simply beyond a calculation of work versus reward. Optimal happiness, feelings of success, motivational factors and personal choice all play a role in the decision about how much work someone is willing to do for a given result, but never before in history has a species been capable of getting so much "reward" at the expense out of so little work, and we might not fully understand the negative effects.

In 1949,  Harvard linguist George Kingsley Zipf proposed the principle of least effort as it pertained to human language.  He posited that language was evolving to become more efficient, using words such as math in place of mathematics or plane in lieu of airplane.  Language requires a certain level of complexity to convey the breadth of human thought, but once an abbreviation is understood, it is generally acceptable as a reasonable substitute.  Hi, gonna, sup, wanna, etc.  The question is at what cost comes this convenience?

In the October 2018 edition of Trends of Cognitive Science, authors Inzlicht, Shenhave and Olivola published "The Effort Paradox: Effort is Both Costly and Valued." The manuscript broke down, defined and examined the relationship between effort, motivation, rewards and satisfaction in human behavior.   The paradox comes in the acknowledgement that effort is difficult and most are averse to it.  When given a choice between exerting effort and not exerting effort for a similar reward, any reasonable person would choose not to put forth any effort.  But, effort in and of itself, adds to the reward of an item or process, or sometimes, is the reward itself.  

When given a choice between doing nothing and making $100 dollars, and putting forth great effort to make $100 dollars, most would choose to do nothing. But what if it was $100 for nothing, or $120 for something difficult? According to the manuscript, people are often willing to accept fewer rewards to avoid additional effort. Yet ironically, if someone worked for, or did something challenging for that same $100 dollars, they value it much more than the person who did nothing to earn it.  

This has been proven by studies in what has become known as the "IKEA Effect," which is that an individual, when required to work to put something together, values it much more than something that was simply given to them, even the free item has a higher financial cost. The more time and effort someone puts into something, the more they feel accomplished or a sense of self-satisfaction upon completion.  This is the basis of why the some of the greatest feelings of accomplishment come not from an event, but in the effort it took to make it to the event.  For example, physically standing on a mountain top is not the most rewarding aspect of mountain climbing, it is the effort it took to get there.  Had the person flown in a helicopter and landed on the peak, there would be little value beyond the impressive view.  

If significant time is put into something, the sense of reward is increased beyond the outcome.

-I'm keeping this origami swan forever because it took me a long time to make

Learned industriousness is the increase of motivation when a reward is increased by the effort it took to achieve.  It increases motivation for later and more challenging endeavors.  Entitlement is the unreasonable expectation of reward without effort, and it decreases future motivation for more challenging endeavors.

Motivation increases as difficulty and complexity increase, while apathy increases without stimuli forcing change.  Worse yet, when indifference is rewarded, it strengthens the aversion towards future activity-- and we live in a world where the effort to achieve has diminished to the point of worthlessness.  By making something easier, by giving more reward for less work, we are literally killing any future motivation to work towards greater goals, which is the root cause of entitlement.

If a reward is given for no effort, eventually the reward is seen as worthless.

-I'm just going to throw these origami swans away because I can get another one whenever I want

As technology increases around us, it takes on more of the responsibilities of human survival; things like farming, transportation, manufacturing and other professions. Through automation we will see a diminished need for expending any effort to acquire not only the basics of survival, but the comforts of prosperity as well.  It will take less and less effort to maintain a high standard of living, and the value placed on it will depreciate as well. Ready prepared meals delivered to your door, guaranteed incomes, lower standards of excellence, mitigated risks, instant gratification and amusements, or any program or convenience which pushes the boundaries between efficiency of indolence is more likely an unseen expense disguised as a free ride to nowhere. Contentment may soon be wither in the shadow of luxury. Like a fish with no eyes, we may find ourselves blinded by our own progress.

Unlike white blood cells, turtles, or flightless birds, human beings need to do more than "just survive" in order to maintain their overall health and well being.  Part of that survival is also a sense of accomplishment, value, contentment and contribution.  And, whether we like it or not, those feelings are the result of work put in, of effort, of struggle and facing failure.  Understanding that the greatest values of our efforts are not in the getting, but in the earning is hard lesson to learn.  It is difficult because like most things in life, the reward can only be found after the price has been paid in full, and taking a short cut only limits the journey.   

Some are more equal than others

I once filled a recurring substitute position teaching elementary level P.E. The teacher had left out detailed instructions for different games and activities for each of the  different age groups, from kindergarten through sixth grade.

The younger grades, the kindergartners, first and second graders I discovered were relatively easy to keep occupied and engaged, but somewhat more difficult to maintain any sort of order, so I eventually gave up.  In time, I resigned myself to the path of least resistance--scatter a few balls and other items around the gym floor, open the doors, and get out of the way.  The next twenty-five minutes was a healthy mixture of screaming, running around in circles and general chaos.

The upper grades, third through sixth grades, took meticulous planning and constant revision throughout each activity.  Common phrases that I heard repeatedly throughout different games included:  "That isn't fair," "She stepped on the line,"  "He touched the ball last," "Those two can't be on the same team," and more than a few times, crying.


With the younger grades, it was twenty-five minutes of play, an opportunity to run, jump, spin, bounce, dance, wiggle, all without restraint from any authority figure.  For the upper grades, it became a practice in equity and fairness, of rules and regulations, a system that needed structure and guidelines with black and white statutes that could be easily identified and understood.

It was exhausting.

What I discovered from this experience, is that developmentally, the early adolescent years is when children become very concerned with a world of rules and fairness.  While still rudimentary, it was very clear that the idea of thing being "fair" was paramount.  As their awareness of the world around them developed, along with it came the need for comparison with others, competition, and a keen insight into the hierarchy of power and justice. 

I'm just not sure if this need for fairness was about being fair, or about not being on the losing side, as the complaints usually came from the team that was weaker, or the individual that would benefit the most from the absolute fidelity to whichever rule was in play.  In fact, many times, the desire for something to be fair was overlooked if it was advantageous to an individual, and not noticed by the whole.  So, I do not think that it was necessarily about the righteous nature of the rules, or the need for equity, it was about establishing a system that could be taken advantage of when needed in order to further one's owns goals.

In On Household God's and Goblins, G.K. Chesterton writes, "For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy."  This growth from childhood to adulthood is often marked with a transition from a world view that is purely black and white, good and evil, or right and wrong, to a world view that consists of several shades of gray, levels of righteousness, and a spectrum of morality that is constantly in fluctuation and often subject to relative circumstances or scenarios.

This is not uncommon at any age, but the games become much more complex and usually entail higher stakes.  A driver who complains about getting pulled over and remarks "it's not fair, other people were speeding too" is also likely to wish for a driver that speeds past them the following day to be ticketed.  It is easy to justify a desire for someone else to get caught and face the consequences of their actions in the name of justice, yet difficult not to rationalize and make excuses for ourselves when we are the ones breaking the rules.  What is worse, is when we create something pernicious masked as something virtuous.

This ability to advocate for an action or process which for one reason, but under the guise of another is a dangerous process of thinking.  In its most harmless form, it allows a person to acquire personal gain with the appearance of helping another.  When we were kids, my parents would tell us that our ice cream cones were dripping and the only way to prevent that was for them to eat a portion of it to prevent it from making a mess. At it's most malicious, it can carry out ruthless practices which are protected by the shroud of morality.  Extreme examples include Jim Crow Laws and the Law for Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases.

I wonder if we are always honest with ourselves when it comes to our own motivations, or if we are sometimes so frightened by our own selfishness or ill intent that we must masquerade them as something upright and righteous?  Are we at times so painfully aware that the blatant nature of our own avarice or malice will be so repugnant to another person that we plead its merit based on a shroud of ethical priority? Sometimes, sound reasoning can be the best disguise for ill intentions, even from the person who is creating them.

Human beings are complex creatures capable of a wide variety of actions, based on a wide variety of values and paradigms of thoughts, some of which are obscured even to the mind of the person behind the actions. We just need to make sure that we actually think what we believe.