Research on the physiology of “choking” under pressure suggests that the reason isn’t that you think about it too much, but that you think with the wrong parts of your brain.
On those (unfortunately rare) occasions when I’ve had to sign more than about a dozen books, the first few flow naturally and reinforce the impression of literary greatness. There comes a point, though, when my hand takes on a life of its own, and I can’t finish the signature. Signature becomes scrawl. Choke.
Research indicates that the parts of the brain that smooth out our previously learned actions — areas like the cerebellum and the premotor cortex of the cerebrum — get overridden by the prefrontal cortex of the cerebrum where our conscious thought resides. The prefrontal cortex is great for thinking, but when it starts micromanaging the cerebellum, disaster often ensues.
As Catherine Caruso, the author of Super Bowl Psychology: Why Athletes “Choke”–and How to Avoid It, observes:
The cerebellum, the area below and behind the cerebrum responsible for motor control, coordinates complex actions when we are on autopilot. But as soon as we start focusing on the individual steps, the cerebral cortex, which controls higher-order conscious thought, takes over and we stumble into trouble.
The article focuses on NFL field goal kickers, some of whom practically never miss during the regular season but sometimes can’t even hit the stands to win a playoff game. Put more simply, their Fingerspitzengefühl breaks down at just the wrong moment.
What about non-physical meanings of Fingerspitzengefühl? The term came to prominence in war, where some commanders appeared to have a mystical ability to sense or feel the flow of a chaotic battlefield and exploit this knowledge to deceive and surprise a larger enemy. Is this also largely the effect of the cerebellum? I don’t know, but it’s certainly worth some research.
One indication that similar processes might be involved is that both the physical and mental forms of Fingerspitzengefühl are developed the same way: years of patient practice that eventually enable intuitive action. The key point is that practice is largely a conscious activity, that is, led by the cerebral cortex. Over time, as it becomes more automatic, it’s like it migrates somewhere else in the brain.
In other words, is this a physiological justification for Boyd’s OODA “loop” sketch:
The idea is that the “Observe-Orient-Hypothesis-Test” loop is how we learn, how we program the smoother, more intuitive system indicated by the “Implicit Guidance and Control” feed from Orientation to Action. IG&C isn’t purely automatic, though. The cerebellum doesn’t appear to take full command. It’s more like it acts to smooth out previously learned actions without conscious effort. Our prefrontal cortex is still involved, and still learning, it’s just not screwing things up.
The reasons for bringing physiology into the OODA loop aren’t to portray Boyd as some kind of prophet or visionary (fMRI, the most common technique for mapping brain activity, was invented shortly before his death) but to suggest that with a more complete understanding of how the brain works, we can devise more effective ways to create and employ Fingerspitzengefühl and even to invent something better as part of the organizational climate.
In the meantime, how do we avoid choking? You could try meditation and mindful-based stress reduction. The article itself suggests that you try to distract the prefrontal cortex (more accurately, the prefrontal cortex distracts the prefrontal cortex):
She also recommends not dwelling on the task ahead of time, adding that it can be helpful to distract yourself by singing a song or repeating a key word: “Something that takes your mind off the mechanics of what you’re doing.” Her work has shown that in high-stress situations, the best athletes are able to succeed by focusing on the overall outcome rather than on the individual steps.
One thing you must do is practice under conditions as close as possible to what you’re going to face on game day. This is one reason the military, the best ones at any rate, use free play exercises — unscripted mock wars — to simulate combat conditions as closely as possible. Our agency, J. Addams & Partners, offers this kind of training to clients who expect to face a hostile audience at shareholders meetings or press conferences (we employ a semi-tame, real life reporter).*
The article was published in Scientific American on the Friday before the Superbowl. It ends with the prescient, and, if you’re a Pats fan, delicious observation: “Will they choke?” Referring to place kickers, but …
*In the 10th episode of Season 3 of Mozart in the Jungle, at minute 3, Hailey is practicing for her audition while her friend Lizzie walks around her screaming insults. Conveys the idea nicely.
It’s not really the quantity of thinking that is important–it’s the quality that is important. The highest quality of thinking happens between decision and action.
In other words, you can’t really overthink a situation nor under-think it, but you can do the bulk of the thinking in the wrong time-step inside the loop itself.
Most of the thinking should be within the area between Decision and Action. It’s as one Jewish philosopher and writer suggested, you can’t act unless you think first.
I think she was not only correct about the relationship of thinking and acting, but she was also correct about the placeholder suggested by the process of thinking-acting.
I will even go out on a limb and put my reputation on the line (a non-existent reputation I should add) by stating so-called choking comes from doing most of the thinking within the space and time between Orientation and Decision or Observation and Orientation. Thinking after acting is nearly useless until Observation begins.
All decisions should come out of how the loop is oriented within the environment observed, but the orientation with the greatest advantage, within any observable environment, should produce the least amount of thinking, timewise, between decision and action, with the most correct answer coming out of the thinking, in context of the position and posture of the orientation, and the greatest ethical force, holding in place both the orientation’s position and posture, within the environment observed.
It is most likely the feedforward and feed backward that gives thinking an advantage or disadvantage within the context of place and time(duration).
Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” and also idea some amount of evolution pressure since 1) fast to survive in hostile environment and 2) brain is most energy intensive part of body, things done a lot, optimized to conserve energy.
Kahneman overlaps some of Ramachandran’s “The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human”
from today: When choosing your next move, your brain is always ready for plan B
Neuroscientists have long debated which comes first—the decision about which target to act on or the movement plan. Although previous studies have shown activations for multiple potential targets in the sensorimotor regions of the brain, this activity could either encode the visual locations of the targets or the motor plans required to act on the targets. On a hockey rink (and in everyday life), motor decisions happen so fast that it’s proved extremely difficult to disentangle these two processes.
I am less sure it is plan B, than just a better more accurate position and posture they are looking at.
“They” being both hemispheres of the human brain.
“Neuroscientists have long debated which comes first—the decision about which target to act on or the movement plan.”
But if I understand the debate correctly, the decision to Act is not in question. So the discussion has to move past Decision and these neuroscientist have to understand what happens after a decision has been made.
I think basically what happens, within the human brain, is thought.
The human brain “thinks” after it has made a decision, and it is this type of thinking (slow/fast deep/ shallow, far/close) thinking that separates us from other animals, within the same environment.
It is our edge, and perhaps our nightmare.
As for “movement plan”, this is a new term for me. Is it logic combined with structure, i.e. posture?
Posture being an image that represent possible movement. In other words, the human mind is able to recognize a winning posture and acts on the one that it is most familiar with?
I don’t know. Maybe there is not really a debate here, but two things happening at the same time, i.e. pattern recognition in the decision made and the image of a structure that can be used for crossing a gap between Decision and Action.
Here’s a factor that has been recognized more recently.
A good example is the 500 channel TV universe, and nothing to watch.
It certainly slows down the ODDA process, often to an extent
where it stalls.