I read the letters to the editor in the Oct. 29 issue of the New Yorker. They were on the theme of dealing with the elderly who have dementia. An old man who had lost his wife appeared to go through the same agonizing blow of grief each time he was told again that his wife had died. He didn't remember that he had heard that before, and the information struck him just as forcefully and devastatingly each subsequent time he asked where his wife was and was told she had died. His adult children found that if they said she was shopping, he was spared the nasty emotional blow.
A neuropsychologist who specializes in dementia seconded that letter, saying that responding to the emotional content of a statement or question is more helpful and effective than focusing on the literal content. One way to respond to an emotion is to sympathize with it as in "I feel that way, too" or in "I often have that feeling." Another is to join in as in "I wonder that, too." As with anything else, practicing and observing what works will lead to better responding.
I am reading "Algorithms to Live By" by Brian Christian. It is an exploration of algorithms, rules and procedures that computers generally use that humans can adopt for their own use. Generally, computers don't have emotions but there are some thoughts that maybe they should. If emotions are good for humans, maybe computers, robots and artificial intelligence would be better with an emotional side. Reading Christian's book, it is easy to see the many steps we go through when thinking and dealing with issues of daily life.
If we are quick to blame ourselves or assume we are inferior thinkers or choosers or decision makers, we may be surprised to find that we wrestle with the same issues that computer designers face. Besides that, there are many logical dilemmas and contradictions that we face in this world that have been proved to be unsolvable. With the right issues, there may be no perfect solution or best path. We don't proceed without error or in complete harmony with ourselves, our work and our aims and neither do the smartest, most farsighted machines.
Almost the first words out of Lynn's mouth this morning about wondering what to do first and why could have come directly from what I had just been reading in Christian's book on logical obstacles to perfect machine performance.
