
Why your brain never runs out of problems to find - oblib
https://theconversation.com/why-your-brain-never-runs-out-of-problems-to-find-98990
======
colanderman
I have another explanation: the scope of things one considers a problem
doesn't change. Rather, each person has a fixed amount of energy for reporting
problems, and they will report the more serious problems in preference to less
serious ones when they are energy-limited.

I see this with myself with code reviews. I tend to nitpick more on good
reviews, not because the (minor) problems seem "relatively" bad, but because I
have the energy to report them (and I assume the reviewee has the energy to
fix them). Whereas on very bad reviews, I can let a _lot_ slide, because I
spend so much energy convincing the reviewee of the most egregious issues with
their code.

Same deal with "neighborhood watch": the watchers probably have an idea of the
"ideal" neighborhood in their mind. At first, they report only the egregious
problems, because doing so takes energy both on their part and on the part of
the police. Once those problems are "cleared away" they're free to focus on
the more minor issues.

(Though I suspect that my explanation, and the explanation offered in the
article, are actually two sides of the same coin.)

~~~
zedderled
The article does mention that relative comparisons often use less energy than
absolute measurements which is in line with your thinking.

~~~
s-shellfish
When scope changes, relative comparisons yield absolutes.

Everything that is relative turns into background reasoning, base foundation,
some comparisons strengthen, others weaken. The strongest thoughts survive
through meticulous pruning. This yields the idea of absolutes, but that's also
the problem from the onset. All that pruning is either relative to context or
.. eventually yields self reference?

Absolutes in that regard, I would think, would use less energy, eventually. Or
it's always the same thing. Comparing absolutes to relatives. What's absolute
is relative, what's relative is absolute, hm, nonsense, maybe.

------
dredmorbius
This dynamic seems to share elements in common with some auto-immune
disorders. Starved of true threats, the immune system attacks elements of
itself, either with perceived or imagined variance from some norm. Social,
political, and, intelligence, doctrinal, and police systems seem to show
similar patterns.

~~~
LolWolf
I think the dynamic is true of many (stable) non-linear systems which operate
in a large range (i.e. frequency/bandwidth) of inputs. If there is large noise
coming in, the output is bounded, but dominated by the large noise, yet if a
small amount of noise is coming in, then this noise is amplified to be a large
(again bounded, but still large) output.

One good example is why you begin to hear things or hallucinate after an
extended absence of stimuli.[0]

Perhaps an overgeneralization which is not always nice and granted, but it is
not uncommon behavior in the non-linear systems we usually analyze.

\---

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation)

~~~
dredmorbius
Staring into analogue-television static for 10-30 minutes is an interesting
experience. Things appear.

------
newswriter99
Karl Pilkington addressed this a decade or two ago with his "problem hole"
theory:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdZHl0yqP6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdZHl0yqP6M)

------
jeabo
This psychological phenomenon seems to be prevalent in various political
movements as well.

~~~
snegu
It explains a lot around how the terms "racist" and "sexist" are now applied
to a much larger (and more subtle) range of behaviors and speech.

------
Zarath
New information is always being obtained, and abstract frameworks are not
always logically consistent.

------
joddystreet
Short summary: first world problems. But, that is how progress is made -
shifting the baseline.

