Quinn Memorial Lecture 2025: Selective Attention and the Inner versus the Outer World

It is that time of the year again when I venture out to UBC to engage and grapple with the current year’s Quinn Memorial Lecture. This time around, I had to rush to make it on time as my online university course ended just an hour before the event was set to begin. But as usual, I ended up being early, so I had more than enough time to settle comfortably and wait for the lecture to start.

In fact, I have been going to the series for over a dozen years now. The first talk I attended was on “Free Will, Neuroscience and Personal Responsibility” by Michael Gazzaniga. There were a couple of Quinn Memorial Lectures I had to miss due to work scheduling conflicts, and then, there was the pandemic, which crossed out and canceled entire lectures and events across the board, including a beloved concert series celebrating my then-favorite composer Ludwig Van. (In case, you’re curious, my post-pandemic go-to composer has been Mozart, so in either case, I find myself in excellent and capable hands.)

Back to our sheep, as the French would say. Incidentally, today’s topic was selective attention and for someone whose mind tends to wander, not so much because of a lack of focus but rather on focusing on too many things at once, I was curious to learn more about this tendency of mine. Digression is my middle name as you may note and witness in this post of mine, heck, who am I kidding, the whole blog is all about digressing!

But I digress. Yet I must confess that from the get-go, my attention was split. I was there to listen and take notes because it is something I do at these lectures with the aim of reproducing the content as faithfully as I am able, alongside my own thoughts and reflections. But the split existed since the Winnipeg Jets were fighting for their survival at the Stanley Cup series, so I would glance or could not help peeking at the scoreboard, which updated the score on an infrequent basis.

The title of this talk was, as you may have already noted in the image, “Focusing attention on sensory x memory contents to guide behavior” by Dr. Anna C. Nobre, who was inexplicably nicknamed and addressed by everyone as Kia. So, I shall permit myself to continue with the same trend.

Kia’s talk was about the outward and inward arrows of attention, their influence and interplay in relation to memory, both stored and incoming. As she stated in one of her slides (I’m not making this up nor reciting from memory here): “Memory and attention work together linking past and future to guide adaptive behavior.”

So, what does this mean? Well, on one hand, we have stimulation, which could be objects or events that lead - or at least have the potential to lead - to perception and action. At the same time, this interacts and is in flux with our internal attention, which is comprised of memories, either in our working memory or as part of our long-term memory. This then works as a way of anticipating, prioritizing, and selecting information, data, and stimuli, and would then potentially trigger or prime our reactions and actions upon them.

In other words, we have not only a perception and action loop, but we are dealing with our own cognition and objects in space versus objects in time (basically moments in space) as well as the inner world, thoughts, reflections, feelings, emotions, distractions, what-have-you. That includes and involves stimulation and processes that have been stored in the past leaving trails and traces in the present moment.

Hence, selective attention is not a state but a function. Put differently, goals and objectives from the inside are guiding the process of attention, whether we acknowledge this or not, and they all interact with the outside world. These “memory traces” then aid us with picking up signals and relevant cues from the world.

In these cases, voluntary and involuntary attention are happening together, and this is a highly dynamic system, which can also be flexible and reversible as we are actively engaging with the world. This is occurring because the brain is shifting and moving constantly between intangible memories and concrete sensory objects.

To illustrate this, we can look at two different examples. Imagine you are sitting cross-legged and meditating. Your focus is on your breath. Now as you are predominantly switched to our inner world, the outer world may be tugging on your attention strings. At this point, we are ignoring the inner distractions, such as random thoughts seeping into your focus, and we will also ignore and disregard the pain or discomfort in your legs as you are not new to this meditation practice, at least in this scenario.

But what about the car alarm sounding on your street? You may immediately switch back to your meditation because it is not yours. As a matter of fact, you don’t even have a car, so you’re all good. The situation would be different if it was your building’s fire alarm. At that point, you would most likely - and hopefully - stop the meditation and quickly get yourself to a safe place.

Here we see how the inner and outer world is vying for your attention, but you are selecting and prioritizing which one to attend to. In my next example, the situation is more complex as you are about to fulfil a task: making coffee.

Now as I have written previously on “How the Brain makes Coffee and dislikes Multitasking,” according to cognitive psychologist David Badre, a seemingly simple task is much more complicated than we think; making coffee involves a number of processes that are previously stored in our memory and this is being retrieved and held in our working memory as we are going about the given task. In this case, we are also dealing with sequencing as you need to put in the coffee before running the water, or else, you just end up with hot water.

But what happens when the unexpected intrudes and disrupts your whole procedure? What if the filter is not in its usual place, or worse, you have actually run out of filters? In such situations, your focus would shift toward the outer world where it is not about making coffee but finding a way of procuring the necessary bits and pieces to make it happen. Coffee, especially in the morning, is the tangible object we want to physically drink not to just imagine or think about.

In such situations, you may resort to creative thinking or even use your intuition to solve problems. In fact, that was the question I asked Kia. She told me it was a good one but at this point, she was looking at simpler tasks and experiments so that she could provide the facts and hard data on them.

Once these were fully established, the goal would be to do more complex sets of experiments to test such fascinating and more juicy (my word not hers) concepts and notions like creativity and intuition. Although inherently interesting, it is also admittedly much tougher to study.

It is great, however, that the groundwork is being set. In her lecture, she gave a number of experiments they had done, including some that involved retrocue tests and other studies that measured and studied tiny movements of the eye, and those ended up being moments where my selective attention zoned out and focused on other matters, so my memory and knowledge are hazy regarding these points.

The simple fact is that I did not find them interesting enough to warrant my attention. This is perhaps the main reason that I’m not a psychologist. The most interesting aspects of human nature are hard to pinpoint and prove in a matter-of-fact scientific way, especially since each individual is different and their inner world is inherently unique and not comparable to others. This has also been a failing, in my view, of Freud’s overall attempt to turn psychoanalysis into a science. But guess what? Oops, I did it again! I digressed.

Nonetheless, there are a few takeaways that I found most interesting in the 2025 Quinn Memorial Lecture that I would like to flesh out here. First off, as previously mentioned, it is not either/or, or one or the other but these shifts of attention can occur very quickly and even simultaneously. When crossing domains, it will have an effect on reaction time and there may be accuracy costs, and there are studies to prove that.

Furthermore, there is no “domain police” (Kia’s words) whereas other control functions and parameters may be at play. It may even be a battle or an interplay between external and internal domains. In other words, at times, they may be at odds, and at other odds, they may be working together hand-in-hand.

In the end, our brain wants to help us and help us figure things out. Another interesting bit about the brain that Kia mentioned is that the brain is frugal and super lazy. I shared that observation with my teenage son, and he agreed whole-heartedly with the finding from personal experience.  

In fact, the brain does not want to waste energy and tries to do as little as possible to get things done. This is not necessarily a bad thing as there are a lot of things on the brain’s plate, so it tries to cut corners as much as possible. Yet, in certain situations, this may complicate things or lead towards actions that are not in our best interest.

For instance, when we need quick information, we may rely on experiences that may be too general, and in some cases, they may be inaccurate or not offer a whole story. We may pounce upon or hold onto salient images or perceptions in our mind that are not based on rigorous analysis but on vague feelings or impressions. In those cases, we may be vulnerable and susceptible to hear-say, gossip, or prejudices instead of taking the time and effort to look at the situation in a more objective, balanced, and reasonable manner.  

A final thing that Kia mentioned in this talk is that essentially everything is in our head. This is because we perceive the world through our eyes, thoughts, and experiences. In fact, she admitted that there is nothing but inner world and that everything is essentially thought or experienced through and by each of us. Yet such essentially mystic musings would preclude any kind of scientific study, so we need to accept, confirm and reaffirm the outer world as a separate entity, which interacts with us in the same way that we interact with it.

And in that process, we learn and grow and gain knowledge and wisdom. But to do so, we ought to first overcome our inherent neuroscientific laziness, we need to accept that we do not already have all the knowledge and information at hand – that we do not know it all - and then, choose and select to be open and flexible to incoming information, stimulation, and experiences, these objects and moments in space and time.

 

The Sudden Awakening of Canada’s Slumbering National Pride

These are strange times when one must not only state the obvious but also mean it and wholeheartedly stand by it: Canada is an independent sovereign nation. It is not a state of another country, it is not up for sale, and it wants to live in peace and harmony with its neighbors. The fundamental values of liberty, freedom of choice, equality, human rights, and democracy are not only cherished and valued here, but we know deep in our hearts and bones that they are worth fighting for.

Yes, Canada is relatively young and not a perfect country, but it has forged ahead with strong values and good and well-meaning intentions while also setting itself apart from its neighboring superpower by making conscious choices and efforts steeped in peacemaking and respect of other nations, cultures, and ethnicities with an official bilingual system and a living practice and emblem of multiculturalism.

There is lot to be proud of, and yet, it is rarely demonstrated or talked about in terms of national pride, for different reasons and under separate pretexts. As an immigrant to Canada, I was surprised to see how Canadians often downplayed and subdued national pride. Unlike their often boisterous and unapologetically proud neighbor, this northern side of the continent was rather humble and humbly modest.

Almost sixty years ago to the day, we officially adopted our red and white Maple Leaf flag but they were not waved about unless there was a serious international hockey game in the offing, and flags could be spotted here and there - albeit diminishing in recent times - on the first of July, Canada’s Day and a sort of counterpart to the July 4^th of our American neighbor - minus the grand festivities, the overflowing enthusiasm, and the fireworks.

Why do Canadians not embrace their nation more wholeheartedly, I asked myself, a previous asylum seeker who has grown up in Germany. Here in Canada, there seemed to be a block and reluctance to freely express national pride, as if Canadians were insecure about themselves and their nation or just incredibly shy to make any waves and as if they were uncomfortable putting themselves in the spotlight. Back in Germany, we would hear very little about this large country up north and would hence imagine snow-covered huts and cabins, waterfalls, diligent hard-working beavers, and lumberjacks hunting for bears.

And yet, this modest poise and calm seem like a cool outward veneer, a type of facade that could be punctured, and then erupt in wild and sudden outbursts, particularly during hockey games where bodychecks would be dispensed and delivered with glee and the gloves would be dropped; in fact, fighting has become a staple of this popular national sport.

Who could tell, especially if day in and day out, we would see Canadians everywhere apologizing for everything regardless of if they were at fault or not, and they would be walking on eggshells afraid of accidentally and even unconsciously offending others and avoiding microaggressions like the plague, except of course, the previously mentioned fighting in the ice rink, which was more bravura and fun and games than a blood sport.

This contrasted with the brash expression of Americans and the direct and upfront demeanor of Germans. With each of these nationalities, there would be not much mincing of words and especially with the former, there would be no shortage of personal, often unsolicited opinions no matter how outrageous they would seem to others. Germans in terms of their nationality and the expression thereof were heavily burdened by their horrible and devastating past and their flags would be the exclusive domain of international soccer games, their source of pride but also the vortex of pain considering the lack of success and accomplishments in recent times.

Yet the American dream and this lavish, carefree, and often careless lifestyle were filled with an enthusiasm, a sense of freedom and unfiltered patriotism that in some ways are the envy of many countries, including us here in Canada. Evidently, the American experiment is not without its flaws, detours, or shortcomings. The issue of race and the unconcealed practice of slavery as well as oppression of others tend to be ignored or brushed aside.

Moreover, the involvement in political wars and international affairs, be it Vietnam or the Middle Eastern wars are downplayed and even ignored, while the focus and attention are posited more on positive results and outcomes, be it their budding economy, their innovation, their steadfast and unwavering determination and the firm handheld belief that anything is indeed possible, and no dream is out of reach. These are commendable perspectives and attitudes as long as they are carefully calibrated, and checked and counterbalanced with the negative aspects and counterparts, the push and pull and gravity of truths and reality.

When it comes to Canada, we seem to have been carrying an invisible stain of guilt and shame all along and this exploded when news hit us regarding the atrocities of residential schools. No nation is perfect, and every country has its dark side and its bleak past, but this hit hard and temporarily sank the little pride that Canada still had in itself. The same way blindly believing in oneself despite and against the facts and reality can be detrimental to the psyche, being haunted and weighed down by feelings of guilt and shame are also harmful.

Over the past years, this has gone into overdrive with the implicit approval and even insistence of the government. Any person who was or could be oppressed was hailed as a hero and any who had privilege, whether merited or not, whether through their hard work or not, was seen as potentially evil or was seen as part of the problem. Not only would a large portion of the population be accused of engaging in “microaggressions” – a vague term that could be applied to pretty much anything - on a daily basis, but they would also be considered racist unless they were from a minority, who were incidentally given carte blanche and were automatically and a priori exempt from any potential blame or wrongdoing.

This led to an obsession and preoccupation of offending or slighting others that it became even frowned upon to wish someone Merry Christmas or for busses to support our local hockey team because anyone who did not like hockey would and could be potentially offended. This misguided relativism dilated, weakened, and undermined many of our traditions, practices, and even values, so we wished people happy holidays to be as inclusive as possible while ironically excluding large swaths of our population.

This untenable and unsustainable state continued, and people would even avoid saying “Happy Canada Day” as if the nation was a dirty word and needed to be eradicated and replaced with something else or a different name. Any citizen with an ounce of national pride would be cancelled or ridiculed and be “educated” and put on the supposedly right path and side of history.

All this continued and put in question our identity and values until our very own sovereignty and existence came under threat. It was a seeming running “joke” by the American president that was actually meant as a serious comment underlining and harboring a malignant intention of usurping this young country that has stood on its feet and has a strong reputation and standing in the world. Suddenly, we all woke up, put our elbows up and showed grit and stamina that no one, perhaps not even ourselves, thought we had.

Suddenly we realize that we have taken so much for granted as we have either wallowed in self-pity, shame and guilt or were divided and polarized, with all of this weakening our resolve, will, and confidence along the way. Yet this existential threat to our land and our home put us back on the map. We may have weakened but we remain strong and resilient, and we can come together and fight for our freedom and independence as we have done in the past and shall in the future.   

Romanticizing versus Demonizing the Other: How the Left Was Lost and Where it Got Us

Coming off two interesting back-to-back days in February, namely Valentine’s Day on February 14^th and National Day of the Canadian Flag on February 15^th, I have felt motivated (or rather driven/compelled) to write about certain issues that have been on my mind for quite some time while these two dates provide a good reason and convenient excuse to share them with you here.

They will be presented in two parts: The first one deals with the dangers and threats of romanticizing the past and others and it is something that is contributing tremendously to division and polarization in our common era, while the second will give an honest and unflinching look at Canadian patriotism (or lack thereof) as well as issues and potential threats around it, especially when viewed under the current political lens and climate.

As a self-professed (incurable?) romantic, love and romance have been close to my heart starting since early adolescence. Even my thesis has dealt with this topic, in fact, the potential threats, heartbreak, and disillusionment that can come with a distorted view on love and longing stemming from reading (and believing) romance and chivalrous novels whereas my most recent novella that I am putting the finishing touches upon is about the quest for true lasting love.

Yet the romantic ideal and the act of romanticization are not limited to love and romance alone; it can be part of a distorted perspective on reality, what is often referred to as seeing the world through rose-colored glasses. This may be in relationships where we only focus on what we want or wish to see within ourselves and others by only focusing on the positive aspects alongside the tendency of putting the other person on a pedestal and turning them into a goddess or a knight in shiny armor. Often, this dream or fantasy will clash with reality and turn to dust when we realize that these wishes have not been grounded in reality but are an offshoot of wishful or even toxic positive thinking.

Yet these rose-colored glasses can be applied to anything including a perspective that romanticizes the past, different lifestyles or even certain people. We talk about the “good old days”, but the view is often selective and distorted. Although certain things may have been better in comparison, there are still challenges that we would conveniently ignore, downplay, or disregard. It is a case of rearview confirmation bias where we only highlight points that correspond to our current view by shunning or ignoring anything that runs counter to that narrative.

It is true that life used to be different without technology and there are certain things we have lost along the way. Yet, at the same time, there is so much we have gained and so the discussion of the impact of technology on our lives must be taken in a balanced way and not be seen as a polarized or polarizing issue. We would like to have clear-cut answers, but things and life are messier and more complicated than that.

I have previously written about this romantic view not so much in the sense of romance but rather the romantic period where nature and the simple and "primitive" life was glorified to an unrealistic and even dangerous degree and level. It is essentially a naive and distorted view because in the case of wildlife, it can be utterly dangerous to assume that the animals are well-meaning, docile, and humane as was the tragic experience of the Grizzly Man and an implicit error in transcendentalism as a rule.

This distorted view is most prevalent and dangerous in the current mentality and approach regarding morality. In the past, religious groups would claim to have privileged access to the truth and assume that their morality was superior to anyone else’s. Essentially, those who were acting not only in “good faith” but also within the parameters of their chosen faith were expecting and counting on being rewarded in this life as well as the afterlife by gaining and fully deserving their entry ticket to paradise. On the other hand, everyone else would burn in hell, spend time in purgatory, desperately roam the heavens and the earth, or its equivalent.

As a result, whether consciously or not, these adherents of their chosen religion and dogma would adopt and embrace a holier-than-thou attitude in relation to others and everyone else not within their group and community. They would perceive themselves as having special status and being lifted in the eyes of their God or their divinity of choice. Although many religions preach tolerance and equality, in terms of morality, the other would still be seen and regarded as a heathen or an ignorant and primitive person.

This superiority complex or bigotry would be pronounced in those who embraced their belief with the most fervor and who would not allow for any compromise or concessions, firmly believing that their way was not only the right way but also the only way to be and live. In other words, in this extreme view, everyone else was considered wrong and there would be no middle ground or half-way compromise to speak of.

Now what used to be the purview and domain of religious fundamentals has been adopted by the secular far-left. It is the same playbook, minus religion or divinity. The perception that the view of this radical faction is the only and "correct" way of seeing things and that everyone else who opposes or even dares to criticize it is ipso facto a “heathen” (i.e. transphobic, racist etc.) and deserves to be excluded and shunned has been exemplified in what is commonly referred to as cancel culture. Again, no compromises, no concessions, no middle ground, not even a debate; it is our way or the highway and with it the death of your career, reputation or even your claim to personhood.

The most hardened religious and self-proclaimed social activists (aka warriors or heroes) would claim to know the truth and convert others by any means at their disposal to their uncompromising view; they would even use force, bullying, and physical, mental, and emotional violence to conquer others and to make them see for their own good that the zealous proclaimers of social justice are and always will be in the right.

Debate or open dialogue would not be engaged in and would be even shunned and discouraged as these self-evident facts and truths would not be open for debate. Yet the truth is, deep inside, the ardent zealots fear and suspect that it would expose the fallacy of their logic and expose the shaky foundation their dogma and subsequent actions are built upon, and hence, you would have to accept it or else be ex-communicated and essentially become a pariah.

Although community and inclusivity are underscored, neither of them is practiced in these cases. In fact, the group is an exclusively inclusive community of sorts, only those who agree on all the points are allowed to become a member and everyone else is denied entry or cancelled in the first place.

In fact, no one is immune to this, and every single individual goes through constant surveillance and a vetting process whether they are aware of it or not. It is like using a magnifying glass to find the most minor word or phrase that could be twisted around and taken out of context and be used against the given person. Anything you say could be used against you used to be applicable only to those who got arrested yet in the left-o-sphere it applies even retroactively to anything you have said and done starting from your childhood years. Ironically, those who claim to be tolerant tend to be the most intolerant of the lot, and they jump to conclusions and do not embrace innocent until proven guilty.

This is the perfect environment and breeding ground to eliminate any doubt or critical thinking and to foster and increase groupthink. It is not different from how totalitarian governments operate, be they communist or fascist in their outlook.

In this process, certain people are romanticized and by extension others would be demonized. The poor are entirely blameless and innocent and seen as the oppressed and victims of greed and injustice while the wealthy are the enemies as they are perceived as oppressors. Communism in fact is driven less by love for the poor but hatred against the rich and this is exemplified by the popular phrase of (wanting to) Eat the Rich, which also contains elements of envy towards them since the have-nots deep inside would love to have what they do not have.

On the other hand, fascism sees their own race as superior to all others and with the right to decide over them, scapegoat and blame ethnic groups and to mistreat or even kill them if deemed necessary. It is essentially a black and white issue as this view operates under the implicit assumption and belief that every single person from a given race is good or bad.

The Nazis themselves embraced and committed to their view and framework and believed not only that they were superior but also that everyone else was inferior. It is the holier-than-thou belief in action. As a result, the fascists in their twisted and distorted mind and way of thinking did not see themselves or their actions as evil; in fact, they thought that they were doing good and acting for the common good.

This relative morality supposedly gives them and other extreme groups the right to strip, limit or take away people’s humanity and rights with a potential “license to kill” under the guise of moral justice and superiority. This includes communists attacking the wealthy, colonists attacking indigenous people, terrorists from the right and the left as well as jihadists targeting infidels or traitors to the cause, the nation, and the environment, or vigilantes killing off people that they believe and deem to be undeserving of life.

Violence seems justified for one’s cause and beliefs and this is dangerous territory no matter how morally justified the action may seem in the mind of its proponents. The end just does not justify the means, and people’s rights, and humanity should never be stripped of them regardless of their gender, race, belief, or sexuality. It is unethical to treat women unfavorably, the same way, it is unethical to be biased against men, the poor, the wealthy, Jews, Muslims, Christians, heterosexuals, transsexuals, and anyone else. No one is better nor ought to be above anyone else or above the law. This is something we tend to overlook, downplay, or excuse when it is our side doing it but it is and should be universally applied.

We say love is blind but so is hatred. This hypervigilant, uber-romanticized and ultra-sanitized vision does not only stain the present but goes back in time while also moving into the future. Apart from seeing things merely in black and white through the lens of good and evil, it is myopic and very limited in scope and vision.

It is with sadness that I must note that the left has lost not only its path but also its collective mind. As someone who used to be supportive of their ideals and principles, and you can find it expressed here in this blog over the span of many years, I can only shake my head vis-à-vis the developments over the past years and like André Gide realize that it is not what it claims to be, and that its remedy may be even worse than the disease.

It is a misnomer that the left is progressive. It is not so no longer as it has renounced progress, advancement and technology and has stumbled over its own feet and become stagnant, rigid, set, and fixed in their views. Trying to erase the past, to change it, to mold it according to their likes and dislikes or even worse, to ignore it all together will only add to the problem and not solve a single thing. Often, this is done not to shed light, knowledge, and understanding but out of resentment with the aim to stoke and to fan hatred against certain targets, which tend to be the usual suspects, white, male, racist, Christian colonizers or women by the name Karen.

True diversity means including others you may not see eye to eye or agree with. And if everyone in your book is a racist, then the parameters of your definition must be flawed, or there may be blind spots you are not consciously aware of. This is not about the romantic view of good versus evil but rather of different groups that are at odds and even culturally at war with each other and the need to accept a compromise that is acceptable to both sides and which does not merely represent the desire of one group over the other.

It is in fact one thing that the left has lost, to work towards a world where everyone is truly seen as equal, and everyone is judged, according to Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream and vision, by the contents of their character while no one is judged (favorably or unfavorably) by the color of their skin.