Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

April 25, 2013

Intellectual Critical Infrastructure: The Story-Engine Threat

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on April 25, 2013

The human mind is a story-engine. Our species survived by — strangely, weirdly, perhaps uniquely — perceiving the future as something that can be influenced, even created.

In many cultures there is a sense of past, present, and future. In other cultures it is more a matter of an unfolding toward completion…

But whatever the subtlety of time past or yet to arrive, we can feel compelled to anticipate, predict, and — forewarned and thereby forearmed — take action to shape our story’s outcome.

This cognitive adaptation was very helpful to a puny, hairless primate. We may not be able to see ultraviolet, but we can see — or think we see — the future. Over the generations we have sharpened the skill and applied it in wonderful ways.

But the skill emerged more as automatic reflex than mindful choice. Lions, tigers, and bears are unambiguous. The other tribe was immediately recognizable. When there is an unexpected rush of wind or water, my senses surge and cognition jumps into overdrive.

When I am in a strange place surrounded by a strange tribe — most cities, for example — my senses and story-engine are especially alive. The prospect of an immediate intentional threat provokes a particular kind of cognition. It’s similar to when a police car suddenly appears in the rear-view mirror.

This internal engine for imagining the future seems especially adept at short-stories and, actually, rather trashy repetitive short-stories. Stereotypes abound. Once I decide what a threat looks, sounds, smells, feels or tastes like everyone (thing) that shares those characteristics is a threat until proven otherwise — if I take a chance before running away or killing them. For most of the last 60,000 years this has probably been a mostly helpful predisposition.

Daniel Kahneman, the psychologist who won the Nobel prize in economics, has written, “…people are not accustomed to thinking hard, and are often content to trust a plausible judgment that comes to mind.”

I am. Most of the time.

So… I hear about an unexplained fire in a small town in Texas. There is considerable evidence of human neglect in terms of a fertilizer storage facility and what was allowed to be built near the storage facility. But neglect is not intention. Evidently without intention, my story-engine doesn’t feel much motivation. Accidents happen.

This week many of my friends and family are threatened by the flooding Mississippi and Illinois rivers. There is a part of my brain (mind?) that knows (perceives?) the threat has been amplified by a whole host of human choices. But once again neglect is not intention. Without intentionality, my story-engine is mostly bored. Other engines — sympathy, empathy, problem-solving — may start-up. But the story-engine is quiescent. Nature will have her way.

But when two kids not only intentionally kill and maim, but do so randomly and wantonly: while I am 550 miles away my story-engine roars into high speed.

Back in 2007 Kahneman reported on this research result:

Some ten or fifteen years ago when there were terrorism scares in Europe but not in the States, people who were about to travel to Europe were asked questions like, How much would you pay for insurance that would return a hundred thousand dollars if during your trip you died for any reason. Alternatively other people were asked, how much would you pay for insurance that could pay a hundred thousand dollars if you died in a terrorist incident during your trip. People pay a lot more for the second policy than for the first… basically what you’re doing there is substituting fear.

You are asked how much insurance you would pay, and you don’t know—it’s a very hard thing to do. You do know how afraid you are, and you’re more afraid of dying in a terrorist accident than you’re afraid of dying. So you end up paying more because you map your fear into dollars and that’s what you get.

Perceived intentionality amplifies the sense of fear which stimulates our story-engine. The story-engine looks for sources-of-intentionality that will explain — and allow us to quickly influence — how our story unfolds. Our story-engine is not very sophisticated: it’s principal plot device is avoidance or elimination of the threat.  Like the scriptwriter for Texas Chainsaw Massacre, our story-engine prefers obvious threats, unambiguous good and bad, and is inclined to several sequels of essentially the same story.

Reality is not usually so obvious, unambiguous, and repetitive. We need to spawn more sophisticated stories, less pulp fiction, more great American novel, maybe some Russian tragedies or German existentialism.   Even some poetry.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn


Comment by Michael Brady

April 25, 2013 @ 7:06 am


I love it when you go deep.

We really are talking monkeys that think too much…and often incorrectly.

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 25, 2013 @ 8:23 am

Interesting ost Phil! And thanks as always!

One sentence sticks out for me! “But neglect is not intention”!

A civil tort action is based onthe following schema–shortened for the purpose of this blog.

First, the existence of a standard of care which used to be always a standard within a community but now often a national one such as with the medical profession.

Second, a breach of that standard of care!

Third, the breach causing damage [a troubling item since it may involve forseeability and chain of causation- the famous PALZGRAF case being a starting point for most law students–an accident in a railroad station]!

Fourth, the amount of the damage, if at all caused by the breach of the standard of care.

Fifth, the total damages from the event/accident.

With respect to GROSS NEGLIGENCE and in particular with respect to ultra-hazardous activity merely engaging in such an act raises the highest standard of care.

And in many states Gross Negligence may in fact be a crime–either a midemeanor or a felony! For example an accident in Virginia involving death by motor vehicle by an impaired driver brings an almost automatic indictment.

So be warned! Neglect can be viewed as intentional depending on the facts!

Two people told me that three unsolved murders from several years back may be linked to the older brother and wondering if that will prove out in the Boston Bombing.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

April 26, 2013 @ 5:49 am

Michael and Bill:

Thanks. I had hoped a reader would ask/comment about the story-engine of the Tsarnaev brothers or others. I did not see until this morning what Glenn Greenwald wrote in Wednesday’s Guardian. I commend it to you: The Same Motive for Anti-Us “Terrorism” is Cited Over and Over.

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 26, 2013 @ 9:00 am

Thanks for the link Phil! And note increasing evidence that the IC [Intelligence Comminity] missed on the Boston Bombers.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

April 26, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

Further to my suggestion we develop more sophisticated story-engines: In the April 26 Wall Street Journal Joe Morgenstern gives a “rave review” to the new film “Mud” by Jeff Nichols. Following are some excerpts from the review that made me wonder how much Mr. Morgenstern’s subconscious might still be processing events in Boston.

“Nothing more than a scruffy murderer on the run, but the kids see him, at least for awhile, as a romantic renegade living out a violent adventure…”

“… a past master of sparkly narcissism.”

“The man really is a romantic, richly nourished by self-delusion…”

“… hormones pounding and cortex vibrating with confusion.”

“The boy is by turns guileless, shrewd, sentimental, screw-loose aggressive, and constantly checking out his surroundings for how the adult world lives, loves, and lies.”

“”We knew to be afraid of snakes long before we ever got into this world.”…with an emphasis on the word “this” that be-speaks his private vision of another sphere.”

Fill in the blanks between those lines and we might start to have an answer for the question “why” that would stand a reasonable comparison to reality.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

April 28, 2013 @ 8:05 am

And yet further to my thesis, please see Sunday’s op-ed by Thomas Friedman: Judgment not Included. There are, in fact, many similar analyses beginning to emerge. Making a distinction between causation and justification is crucial.

But in Friedman’s final paragraph where he turns from diagnosis to prescription, I perceive a tendency toward protection rather than prevention. On the front page of the Sunday NYT is a feature on the older Tsarnaev brother that strains toward a diagnosis that might support prevention. I expect, though, it is too soon, both in terms of what is known and how we can organize what is known, to offer a persuasive diagnosis… at least I was not persuaded and I am clearly predisposed.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>