Research | My Site

2. Research Questions

Q1. Drive & Purpose: What happens to our mind if we are out of desires and purposes?

Q2. Isolation: To what degree do we need human interactions? How do we deal with life if we are deprived from interacting with other people? Q3.Decision-making: Factors contribute to the decision making process include the initial drive (self motivation), the marco context, existing resources, foreseeable risks and the cost of opportunity. Besides the listed above, could random encounters also influence the decision making process and to what degree?

Q4. Perception & Interpretation: How do we perceive the same thing (objects) at different times with a different state of mind?

Q5. Articulation: How to preserve all these emotions visually?

II. II. RESEARCH & CONTEXTS (RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS)

Internal: What is the drive to live - from desires to anchor to the daily life (Q1) [research angle: psychology, psychiatry]

The purpose of life is possibly too heavy of a topic to discuss over lunch or in any other daily scenarios. We haven’t decoded the ultimate purpose of the universe or to decide if there is one. However on an individual level, as discussed in West World, the sense of meaning (cornerstone) is probably as essential as air and water, a necessity to keep one alive. Personal goals, whether a lifelong dream or short-term objectives such as promotions, travel plans are the fuels to our daily activities. Desires are therefore essential as well. Research has mapped out significant correlations between the meaning in life and depressive symptoms (Kleftaras, 2012). Removing the sense of purpose from one’s life can have dreadful consequences, evidenced by many existing research such as the high prevalence rate of depression disorder for new retirees (Osbourne, 2012) and the association between unemployment and drug abuse (Henkel, 2011).

External: The correlation between social ties and the state of mind, the desire to connect (Q2) [research angle: psychology, psychiatry]

As humans, we naturally desire to connect with one another. When in crisis, we are often urged to reach to our families and friends as they are our support group (safe net). The loss of social connectivity and its negative impact on mental health and our immune system have been proven by numerous researchers (Hudson, 2017)(Saeri, 2018). However, at our age, with the disruption of modern technology and a general shift of personal values and beliefs, it would seem that human relationships are much more goal-orientated (fast dating solutions, professional networking etc.) Many of my interviewees have complained that it is harder and harder to form genuine relationships. Yet when asked about the criteria for genuine relationships, companionship, care are the most occurred phrases. Although individuals may be drawn to intuitive criteria when entering a relationship, companionship, trust may outweigh most factors at the end.

An astonishing and also horrific experiment by Harry Harlow has offered compelling evidences of the importance of comfort, companionship and love. Harlow’s study used methods of maternal deprivation and isolation. In part of the study, Harlow replaced the biological mothers of infant monkeys with surrogate mothers - one was made of wire and wood and the other with cloth. The wire surrogate mothers came with milk bottles while the cloth surrogate mothers did not. Results showed that infant monkey spent significantly more time with the cloth mother, even though they did not have food. Later in an brutal escalation of the experiment, infant monkeys still preferred the cloth mother even when they are equipped with nails that could hurt the infant monkeys. Harlow has then concluded that love is associated with comfort, touch and companionship rather than utility functions(Harlow, 1958).

Decision-making: rationality vs. heuristics (Q3) [research angle: psychology, economics, machine-learning]

Before psychologists and data scientists' obsession on the topic, the mechanism of decision making was analysed and debated among philosophers and economists for centuries. Pascal first highlighted the importance of "expected value" in his thought experiment - whether or not to believe in God. Based on the rationale, one should always choose to believe because the potential reward in the case that God does exist and no expected loss in the opposite case. (Pascal, 1670) When it comes to the decision related to resources and wealth, such as in economic studies, we recognise perceived utility, loss aversion and usually assume the decision makers to be rational. (Bernoulli, 1738) However just by instinct and experiences, that is rarely the case because us humans are not perfectly rational. (Wargo, 2011) In real life scenarios, people tend to simplify the decision making process via heuristics, which involves bias (cognitive errors)(Kahneman, Tversky, 1970) In today's psychology, decision-making is referred to "the cognitive process that leads to the choosing of a belief or a plan of action from a set of alternatives." (Simon, 1977) I find the phrase of "choosing a belief" to be precise. The importance of individual values in decision making is brought under the spotlight. Bias are part of our beliefs (values), and our values are the products of our experiences (education, family influences, people we've met, information we've received etc.) If I may compare humans with machines, our experiences can be seen as inputs, whereas our core values would be the base logic that other logics in the algorithm cannot overwrite. Such conflicts (if any) will trigger a bug in the algorithm and in humans a result of irrational behaviours.

* A side note: Now looking back my previous works to assess my own decision making in terms of subjects, scale, mediums, I find it to be an immensely interesting challenge to balance between rationales (justification of subjects, construction, presentation, scales) and intuition (to allow emotions to be manifested).

The subjectivity of reality (Q4) [research angle: philosophy, physics]

I find it to be both presumptuous and exhausting to argue about the nature of reality. Here I agree with Carroll's statement (See video below the video on the right), there are more than one way to interpret reality, such as in Carroll's example, one could describe the chair as a collection of atoms or as an object made of fabric, neither description invalidate the other. (Carroll, 2017) On one hand, it is interesting to develop a basic understanding about how elementary particles behave. For example, I could still recall the astonishment I found myself in when I first learned about the double slit experiment in high school. Besides the wave particle duality, the experiment has presented an counter-intuitive result: the observer interfere and changes the behaviour of the particle (See below the video on the left). Note here that this does not by any means disapproves the physicality of reality, contrary to what is frequently printed in newspaper (such as "quantum physics suggest that reality doesn't exist") Yet by that age, taking in the knowledge as an amateur on a personal level, it did allow me to constantly reassess and question the casual relations between events and my objectivity in interpreting life in general.

In the context of this research, I am only focused on the subjective experience of reality, particularly to create works reflect and compare the changes of perceptions throughout the state of uncertainty, including the changes in perception toward the same objects or environment and the changes in observational focus. For example, when suffering from insomnia, "bed" and "sleep" used to trigger fear and anxiety in me. Now these words are associated with comfort and safety after my sleep improved. In another example, I started to notice the change of light and shadows in the same room, something that I've never noticed during the stage of depression.

Double Slit Experiment, Wave Particle Duality Animated

Note here that the visuals are not entirely correct, for details please refer to descriptions and comments

The Nature of Reality

A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar (Alan Wallace) and a Theoretical Physicist (Sean Carroll)