Nov 4 - Theory of Mind

 You should write a book, a friend said to me a few weeks back.

He was referring to some of my latest musings and explanations to him, this time.

He's not the first to say so. When I was younger, one person in particular used to tell me off for not writing shit down that I came up with. 

Over the years, to cut it short, it's something I have struggled with. I much prefer to keep it all up in the air in my head. At this point. A stupidly large collection of thoughts, experiences, theories and bullshit. Enough in fact, that some of the starting points have begun to be lost to me. Uh oh. Oh well !

Anyway.

Today. Theory of Mind. Well. I tried. A theory of mind mixed with anecdotes, quotes, allegories and self help. So. Me waffling on. Good job.

This theory of mind is something I have been noodling with for a few months now. It's something that has been a vague background shape within me for a long time, but recently, it has coalesced out of the fog into something distinct. And I have found it to be increasingly transformative of how I see other people and understand their shifts in personality and opinion.

I don't have a fancy name for it. It should - as humans love to do - probably have a fancy name given to it. And as scientists and such like to do, probably lean back into greek, or latin, or, a confusing mash of both. Because. Fancy. IE Telephone. From greek. tēle - far off. phōnḗ - sound, later, voice, speaker. Also see television, teleport, phonetic. Same word roots. I love me some etymology.

Focus Bueller.

Theory of Mind.

A person is a collection of voices, each with their own opinions, likes, dislikes, maturity etc. Many personalities. There isn't just one single voice. One person. There are many within. And they argue with each other about what to do.

That's the high level summary of it.

Which sounds an awful lot like what used to be called multiple personality disorder, today renamed to ( for the moment ) dissociative identity disorder. 

But it isn't. But it can be.

So what do I mean by this ? Let's take a step back to a Freud theory of mind for a minute.

He posited a model that split the mind into three parts, the id, the ego and the superego. In a way you can think of these as three different versions of you, a council of you, a group discussion of you. Three different you's, each with a vote ( ish ). 

The Id represents your more primitive self perhaps. The animal. The instincts. The biological drives. Monkey brain. In some ways this has been thought of as the unleashed uncontrollable bit of you, the uncivilised bit, which, in my opinion, is a deliciously old school sneery horrified way to look down on your biological imperatives. You want sex ?! Oh my goodness no. What would the bridge club think. To me, the Id is just your more primitive self, less wrapped up in the bullshit of social conditioning. It wants, what it wants. Monkey see coconut, monkey want coconut. In Freudian terms, the Id is also supposedly mostly a sub conscious thing. And selfish. And fantastical. Less of a voice. More of a ... feeling. An impulse. A daydreaming sociopath. Again, think primitive brain. No words for it. Just a need. 

I personally think again this is something of a product of its time, Victorian era Austria that was *super* locked down in its morality and thinking and repressive thought patterns. I don't think the Id is as sub conscious as the Victorian era would like to believe ( nor as fucked up selfish or slavering ) - the concept of some desires or needs being conscious instead of "something I have no control over" would be horrific. As Nietsche noted, coming to terms with both your light and dark is an important step in growing. But. In my humble opinion Victorian era psychology struggled with its own beasts there. Physician heal thyself.

But purist Freud says, the Id is a bit of a monster. A bit of a devil. Unspoken. But pushing you on to do shit you really want, no matter the cost or the morality or yada. Eat all the things. Hump all the furniture. Kill all the annoyances. That kind of thing.

Moving on.

The Ego represents, for want of a better word, the manager. The realist. The thing that has to deliver some sanity to the world at large. Rather than just going around humping coconut trees. It blunts the drives of the Id into something more socially acceptable, screens out the unacceptable. It's also the bit that is there thinking shit through and making decisions. The very conscious bit of your inner voice.

Then there is the superego. The superego is a marker of exams. A judge. A jury. In some ways it is the opposite of the id. It has higher ideals and morals. It likes to tut at your homework and tell you how shit you are and that you should do better. That you are not here to enjoy yourself. But to do better. It likes to shame the ego into doing the "right thing", ie, probably not what the Id wants. 

So a simple example. The Id would like to go over there and hump that coconut tree. Feel good. The ego considers it, hmm, yes, that would feel good. The superego says, fuck no, what would everyone think of us. You can't just go around humping coconut trees. Have some self control. Be a better person. Show everyone how measured you are. Hmm, good point thinks the ego. At this point if the ego goes with the Id, you hump a coconut tree, feel good, but the superego then likely makes you feel guilty or bad about having done so. The much quoted "post masturbation feeling of regret". If the ego goes with the superego, then, no humping for you, the superego probably rewards you with feeling superior, whilst the Id chomps on its chain, and you get to feel restrained, pent up, and unsatisfied.

So much for the Freudian view.

To my mind there's a bunch wrong with this. For starters, it is enormously couched in a very buttoned down Victorian world view. Where the primitive is disgraceful ( we get a lot of our shitty old opinions about inferior animals versus superior humans from this era ), and the restrained repressed model is admirable. See stuff like, the Stiff Upper Lip. Unflinching bravery.

To me this reeks of repression. Fear. Fear of being "just another animal". Of not being Gods Special Children. And showing emotion and being a terrible person. etc.

So we have an Id that is largely demonised. Such a primitive beast. And is relegated to sub conscious thinking and urges.

We have a super ego which, is as close to a manifestation of some puritan punshing preacher as you get. Very Victorian. And the Ego stuck in the middle making choices.

My personal take on the Freud model is that the Id is your more primitive self. It's not a devil. Not some uncontrolled asshole. It's just a lot more honest about what it needs or wants. It's the programming from your primitive animal self, when you ran around gathering seeds, running from predators, and figuring out how to mate this season. Natural. Of course, to a Victorian, this is devilish. Uncivilised. And something we don't acknowledge. Let's call it a monster.

The ego and superego to me, are very very much correlated with your prefrontal cortex later developed bit of brain. The bit of brain that developed *after* that animal stage. And gave you the ability to think in abstract terms. To form language. To puzzle solve. That whole thinking evaluating engine that is a layer on top of the earlier simpler brain of monkey see coconut, monkey eat coconut.

I am not sure the ego and superego - in that model - are particularly separate as such. They are intertwined and weigh up the abstract simulations of their environment. Which is what that bit of your brain was meant to do. To work out how to get the coconut out of the tree. Maybe. With a tool. If I hit this rock over here, it will fall there, and cause a stampede, and get us some antelope in a pit we dug earlier. That kind of a follows b follows c theorising about shit that hasn't happened yet, is, in Freudian terms to me, the ego and superego. It's working out the probable outcomes - and social outcomes - of any action. The answers can vary and can be never the same twice. 

To me, in simple terms. The Id is a summary of the early animal brain. And the ego and superego are the summary of the later brain. Language et al, and the voice or simulations in your head are the latter bits at work. The fact that you're hungry and fancy a donut is the former.

To me the Freudian model is interesting. It's a model. It can allow you to think about things in a different way. And possibly get insight. It is, just another abstract simulation of our brain.. to try and understand... our brain. Doesn't mean it's right. Or close to right. But possibly useful. And this is how all science works. Consider Newtonian physics. Makes sense. Good model. Works well. You can work shit out. Is actually entirely bollocks. Nothing of the sort is going on. It's all quantum. But from a high enough vantage point, the Newtonian model sure looks about right. Context. Platos allegory of the cave again. Do you make rules for the shadows on the wall you can see. Or. Are you standing behind everyone, can see the candle that floats behind them and *casts* the shadows on the wall, and make rules for the candle. Newtons model is the shadows. Quantum physics is the candle. Newtons model cannot explain why all the shadows suddenly disappear. But everything else seems explainable. The quantum model says yeah, well, thats because someone just covered the candle. Duh. We wont go into the deeper weeds of, quantum just being its own shadow play of something even further back again that you and the smart ass candle holder are unaware of. Context. Context. Context.

Anywho.

Freud covered. My theory of mind.

There are many voices. Not one. Not three like Freud. But many. How many ? As many as it takes. It doesn't matter. The notion of singular permanent entities doesn't fit here. They may come or go. Various aspects of your personality growing, fading, sometimes quickly, sometimes over many years. Who you are is the gestalt of all these voices together. And at any one point in time, what you are doing, or who you are in that moment, is the result of the output of those voices. It can change from day to day. From moment to moment even.

The many voices do not take on distinct personalities in your head. They are all.. as you think of it... you. But you can hear them argue. Should I do this. Or that. What do we think about X. The discussion that goes on in your head about it. The whispers of fear. Or the self recriminations of your inner critic.Your desires. Your secret in the shadows desires.

There are no simple distinctions to be made here like in Freuds very mechanical and neat model of 3 parts. There are many parts, and they can represent different things, or multiple things. They can come and go.

In a way, you can think of it like a village full of people. They come and go and change over time. And they discuss things in the village square. They are all strangely indistinct, you can't tell differing clothes or faces, but, they are separate nevertheless.

Ok. So. What does that mean. You're saying that a person is actually a whole gaggle of small people that are deciding whether you should walk left or right at any one time. Why isn't there absolute chaos ?

Consistency. The outer project of consistency is quite important. And. Your inner selves are not, or, usually not, violently at war with each other. It is more variations of you. You with blonde hair and you with dark hair. Think of it like all being member of the same political party. Or even. Just politics in general. All the politicians can have differing views. But government works as a whole. Is fairly consistent in its approach. And tends not to just randomly start killing people on Tuesdays.

So the consistency thing. As a smart, thinking human, you are quite aware of what consistency is. Dependability. The social problems caused by *not* being dependable. And so. There is quite a push there, peer pressure, social pressure, to appear consistent. Despite the internal babble going on.

So people, from the outside, from a distance will look consistent. A single voice. Doing their thing. With a single opinion. And a singular personality.

And *this* is how we pigeon everyone we come across. Jack the baker. Bob the doctor.

But this isn't the reality.

Have you ever noticed that the closer you get to someone - the more you know of them, the longer you spend with them, the less consistent they start to appear. "Mood swings". Happy. Then sad. I want this. No fuck you I dont want that. I want a cuddle. Stop touching me. Of people not knowing what to do. Hesitation. Being stuck.

Beyond that, there can be the bewildering changes. Mid life crises. Where someones personality apparently abruptly changes from what you know of them. It's so out of character ! Perhaps they have a fling. Or buy a fancy car. Or decide to just walk out one day.

You could argue it's just impulsive. Random impulses they act on. Which... can happen. But generally not for big changes. Sudden pivots in character. It's not about deciding to buy a donut or not, but sometimes about people changing entirely. Suddenly travelling the world. Ditching the husband and going adventuring. These are pre-meditated fully formed people. Not some random popping out of thin air into a different person. Of course. On the outside. If we have this singular somewhat static rating of someone, then when they change like that, it can be jarring. How could they change ? The reality is, internal to them, they haven't changed as much as you think. It has always been there. But never quite got the vote to act before. Or had quite enough impetus to act before.

Consider a change in governments. From one ideology to another. If you were to look at a government from afar, it has its policies, it does its things. And you were unaware that different governments existed. Or that there were even votes. And the next day you see The Government reversing previous decisions. Doing different things. My goodness. How out of character ! Assuming you see Government as just one long progression of a single thing.

But it isn't.

In times of emotional turmoil. High stakes life. Such changes in outward personality can come quickly and in rapid succession. Flip flopping between yes and no. I don't know. As the inner debate heats up and a crisis develops.

I have had many conversations with people where one day they are adamant that they will do X. That's it. No more. This is happening.

24 hours later, it's like a different person is there. Oh no. It's fine. Doing Y. Just being silly.

And then 48 hours later. Back to X.

In general, people will not show you this turmoil unless you know them well, and, they are used to sharing with you.

But at such times, the warring voices are clearly visible. And can be marked. From one extreme to the next, from varying life decisions to sticking with a marriage, to divorce.

Under a single thinking stream of thought, these kind of flip flops are hard to get a grip of. How on earth does the state flip between two well thought out, well argued, extremeley different rational positions and associated emotions. You can hold two different ideas in your head at once. Many ideas at once. You can pick them up, work on them, and put them down for later. There isn't just one singular stream here. One singular voice. There are many.

Are you aware of the debate internally ?

This is complicated. By how people think. Some do not have an internal dialogue at all. Or at least. It's not consciously audible to them. Or at least. They don't know how to recognise it.

Some do, but all of it is just "them". I am the one singular thing. With many "ideas". And opinions.

But maybe at times you are aware of it. The internal debate. Who are you debating with ? Yourself of course. Right. But. Really. There is more than once voice there. Even though they might sound the same in your head. Think about it. Observe it. Different... opinions.... testing against each other. Even some aspects of personality. You can become "annoyed with yourself". Frustrated with yourself over your procrastination. An urge to do something, but, know that you are too lazy to do it. You have have conflicting desires going on. I want to do something. I don't want to get up.

Realise that for what it is. Multiple urges and voices.

And by voices. I don't mean the cast of a soap opera. Each with distinct looks and personalities. Far far more mushy than that. Iterations of yourself. Clones of yourself arguing with each other. Some of them closer in form than others. Some very different.

The voices can slumber. Leave. Come back. Change. Sometimes it will just be one. Empty your mind, and peace descends. The village square empties.

All of this leads to inconsistency. The person that you are is not some monolithic always there robot. It is a kaleidoscope of shifting voices that on the surface can appear mostly to be consistent. Like the many voices of a government enacting a single policy. But push it. Or expose it. And the many voices can be seen.

For ourselves, we are convinced of our singular personality. This is Me. This is the voice In My Head. In reality it is an illusion of a myriad of input signals, visual trickery, timing and all sorts. An orchestra playing a harmonic piece. And if you've never experience bits of that failing, the singular harmony can seem to be the only thing there. It just is one. But it's not. It is many moving parts.

And many voices.

I have a suspicion that this in some way is connected to multiple personality disorders. Where something has gone not quite right with the village square. Everyone is not talking together. But somehow there is now more than one square. Or perhaps some of those voices have taken on a more fully fledged personality. And as each rises to take control, someones personality flips drastically. And they are keenly aware of the "voices inside their head". The different personalities within.

I think. Everyone has this. But in "healthy" people, this is a harmony, one that doesnt always agree with itself, but, the illusion of the singular identity holds. In dysfunctional people the illusion has broken, and the awareness of the many voices, the many personalities is dominant.

But it is in the end, just a theory. A model. Perhaps it is accurate. Or more accurate. Or helpful.

It certainly corrolates strongly with what I have observed of people over the decades. Over my many years of tinkering inside peoples heads and teasing my way through into the defencless core. I love getting to know people. Properly. Without artifice. Show me who you are. No judgement here. I will not hurt you. Just be you. It's ok to be you with me. And I would love to know you. Truly.

Ok. Cool. So let's say you run with this. People are at times a chorus of voices inside them. What do I do with that information ?

The big one. Do not assess people as one thing or another. Do not pigeon hole them as the one thing you know them as. Dependable. Boring. Adventurous. Flakey. Understand that this categorising of someone else is a product of you, getting an easy quick handle on someone, and also distance. You are not ( generally ) privy to the endless number of quirks, changes of mind, "mood swings" et al that makes up someone. The closer you get, the more you will notice*. From that. Understand that of course people can therefore be subject to sudden dramatic changes. That from one moment to the next they maybe a hypocrite. Yes in one moment. No in the next. This is not them being crazy. Or suddenly changing. This is who we all are. Consistency is something of an illusion. And it is very possible - and very human - to hold opposite opinions about something, and believe in them both, but what comes out at any given time... well... that depends on the internal debate.

We are given to sneer at hypocrisy. With good reason. We rely in society on people doing what they say they are going to do. Keep your word. Without it trust disappears. And without that, the foundations of civilisation, organised society, disappear. And so we stamp on hypocrisy. Try not to be a hypocrite ourselves. And move on.

But for all that. It is also absolutely in our nature to be hypocritical. It is the outcome of competing abstract simuations in our head. Working out where the coconut will fall. Here. Or there. Either is possible. Yes. Or No. And the arguments we have with ourselves about which one we should pick. The frustration we can feel at ourselves over things we say, that not all of our internal voices agree with ! Or things we end up doing, that not all our internal voices think is good !

Summary then. Be aware that not only can people change over time with experience, wisdom, education. They can change suddenly. From one moment to the next. Different personality. Different opinion. And that is not crazy. It's human. It is reflecting of their inner selves. An inner turmoil.

What else can we learn from this ?

Look inward. Give yourself a break. Realise that you can have more than one opinion about something. Yes you might end up breaking contracts. Betraying someones dependence on you to be a certain way. Which will have consequences. But also to give yourself a break. There are no firm answers in life. There are no correct solutions to the problems in the back of the book. Your 3 pounds of salty bacon is doing its best to assess its environment, assess its needs and guess what a good direction is to go. In the circumstances, it's doing amazingly well for a lump of bacon sitting in a dark room. Don't be too shy of letting other voices have a say. Of not conforming to others expectations. Of worrying about how you look to others.

Because many aspects of this multi voice thing in our heads result in our inner critic ( yet another voice ) sneering at us. At our apparent failures. There is no understanding that this is normal. Just rather that its a failure. A failure to be consistent. To meet your peers expectations. So change the language on that. Understand it IS part of being a human. And self loathing about just being human is a pretty fucky thing to be. So. Try to understand that before being so judgy with yourself.

Of course social bonds are important. And doing what you say you will do. Being consistent - despite all that chaotic arguing internally - is important. You can strive to do the "right thing" by everyone else. But also be aware of the realities of who you are, and who everyone else is. Things can change. Do no harm to others - if you can at all help it. Everything else. Is debatable. Who you are. Where you are going. What you are doing.

Understand that you can change your mind on things. More than once. And that you wont always make sense. We aren't rational beings. We are full of irrational pushes. We are not computers, but fuzzy bacon boxes. Our outputs are never ever the same twice.

 

Anyway. This has wandered between anecdotes, theories, and self help nonsense in the end.

But the summary takeaway is this. We are composed of a chorus of voices. They can differ a lot in what they say, can even be opposed to each other. The final result that the world sees is whichever voice ends up getting the most votes. Or has the loudest voice at the time. And that. Can change. Sometimes very quickly. Don't be surprised if someone suddenly changes. Or you watch them flip flop between two difficult but opposite positions.

One output. Many inputs. Which. Is the brain summary entirely.

 

* Live with someone. You will see more. To the extent that maybe even you "hate" them at times. Certain voices within them, at times when they change, or act like an asshole, or cold or whatever. You see much more of the nuance. The different people they can be. The many that they are. And some of those, perhaps, you don't like much.