Sunday, July 25, 2010

Our Two Selves

We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.
—Carl Jung

Much of my worldview is based on the idea that our minds are modular (so I figure that I might as well make this post sooner rather than later so that I can just refer back to it in the future). The extent of modularity is debated, but I focus on one major demarcation: that between our conscious mind and our unconscious mind. By necessity, this overview will be an oversimplification, but it will (I hope) suffice as a first approximation.* The two systems are characterized as follows:

  • Conscious vs. Unconscious
  • Cognitive vs. Emotional
  • Controlled vs. Automatic
  • Reason vs. Passion
  • Rational vs. Irrational
  • Deductive vs. Intuitive
  • Reflective vs. Reactive
  • Effortful vs. Effortless
  • Cool vs. Hot
  • Slow vs. Fast

Whereas the unconscious system is thought to be largely instantiated in the limbic system (and other primordial brain systems that we share with non-human animals), the conscious system is thought be instantiated in the prefrontal cortex.

For some, this will be a novel idea. For others, this explanation will resonate as being intuitively true. Indeed, numerous thinkers throughout the years have spoken about these two systems. Take, for instance, (St.) Paul’s distinction when he said that “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Or Medea’s introspection that “Desire and reason are pulling in different directions. I see the right way and approve it, but follow the wrong.” Similarly, Budhha used a metaphor of an elephant and its rider: “In days gone by, this mind of mine used to stray wherever selfish desire or lust or pleasure would lead it. Today this mind does not stray and is under the harmony of control, even as a wild elephant is controlled by the trainer.” For those familiar with Freudian psychology, these systems map onto the ego and the id.

This division explains diverse phenomena, such as the phenomenology of self-control, optical illusions, why you can fall “in love” with someone that you “know” isn’t right for you, why you (or I, at least) have a difficult time with calculus but can instinctively compute the ballistic trajectory of a ball flying through the air in order to catch it, moral intuitions, and judgment and decision-making biases/heuristics in general.

Going back to the metaphor of an elephant and its rider...although many people tend to identify with and assign primacy to the rider (myself included…I do study self-control after all), I feel that the unconscious often gets the short shrift. The elephant actually “knows” and does more than the rider. I’m not sure who actually said it, but s/he was right that “the heart has reasons that reason knows not.” Or, as Jung said, “Emotion is the chief source of all becoming-conscious. There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of apathy into movement without emotion.” Feelings are (or at least should be) "inputs" in decisions that involve logic. Logic provides the structure for making decisions, but feelings, intuition, etc. are the foundations of good reasoning. In Gulliver's Travels, Swift put the Houyhnhnms' use of reason/logic on a pedestal, but I don't believe it is possible to have "pure reason." In terms of a logical syllogism, we will always come down to a fundamental premise that cannot be rationalized. As an example, ask yourself why you did something (anything). You can rationalize, but eventually, the answer will be something like “because I felt like it,” “because I believe that it is the right thing to do,” or “because God/Buddha/Muhammad/Krisha/etc. said so.” Logic applied to anything that is worthwhile is useless without "irrational" feelings, values, and intuitions. Emotions/intuitions are the foundations or axioms of our logic...they are or at least should be allies, not antagonists (as they are often characterized). I, for one, tend to overthink things and am probably worse off because of it. One challenge for me is to figure out when to just trust my heart/gut/instincts. We are not just the rider (or the elephant). We are both.

*For more on these two systems, see the first chapters of The Happiness Hypothesis by John Haidt and Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Eli, I totally agree the elephant tends to get short shrift. I definitely get the impression that my elephant notices and pushes me to act on many things that my rider misses, at least at first or in part. I was paying attention to one thing but my elephant picked up on other things that may have actually been more important. I don't know if it can be quantified exactly but I wouldn't be surprised if we actually perceive quite a bit more from the environment unconsciously than we what we process consciously.

    When I was a teen I was all about trying to be 100% rational and logical, but now I feel I have to trust my elephant to lead, to a certain extent. So far I have been really impressed with my elephant's wisdom even when I don't really understand it. We don't really speak the same language though, so it's still difficult sometimes to distinguish informed, wise elephant moves ("intuition"), vs. instinctual, not-so-great ones... and yeah, even when I can, that doesn't mean instinct won't prevail. Definitely still a work in progress!

    PS. I wonder if there's a third option between "hot" and "cold" processing. I feel like one way to identify "intuition" is that it it a "cool hot" (neither a lukewarm indifference or chaotic clashing of hot and cold though).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Pam,

    I sought to be "100% rational and logical" until I was about 21, and only recently have I tried to balance the two.

    Interesting thought regardin the third option. I'm going to have to think about it a bit more.

    ReplyDelete