The most valuable thing I've gotten from the past several years of therapy is a better model for how humans actually process information. The simple model a lot of people have is:
1. Receive some stimulus, input, or experience.
2. Process and understand it.
3. Respond to that emotionally.
What we actually do is more like:
1. Receive some stimulus, input, or experience.
2. This data is way too ambiguous to make sense of on its own. So to turn it into coherent information, interpret it through the lens of a narrative about who we are and how we expect the world to work. This happens automatically and unconsciously.
3. React to that interpretation emotionally.
4. Watch logical rational brain then scramble around trying to come up with a coherent story that explains why we started feeling a certain way. The answer it comes up with may or may not agree with the unsconscious process that happened in step 2.
So much of therapy is "Why does X make me feel Y?" How do I fix X? The answer is almost always that X doesn't make you feel Y. X in the context of belief Z you have about yourself leads do you feeling Y. You fix Z by questioning the often toxic beliefs you hold about yourself. But it can take a lot of work and therapy to even be able to see Z, much less root it out and install a better narrative.
Love the level of introspection going into this post. I'm compelled to add my own two cents to your narrative since it's helped me.
I think step 4 is where people really get caught in a feedback loop. You come up with a reason why you should feel bad, and then you do (step 3) and before you know it you're back at step 4.
One approach is to try and cut it off at step 2 like you mention, but I've found this to be a never-ending rabbit hole because installing a better narrative requires constant work.
While of course it's not bad to work toward a better narrative of yourself, I've also had great success with meditation and humility targeting step 4. My friends with anxiety and depression all (somewhat paradoxically) are extremely confident when it comes to the rational side of their thoughts. They think they've got it figured out and it's just their emotions or other people that are the problem. I train myself in meditation (don't rationalize at all) and humility (recognize that my rationalizations are never going to be accurate).
> I've found this to be a never-ending rabbit hole because installing a better narrative requires constant work.
Yes. And because our brains are naturally recursive and meta-cognitive, it's so easy to fall into the trap of painting that work itself with the same toxic self narrative: "Ugh, I better keep working on improving my psychology because mine is so screwed up and I'm such a mess."
Short-circuiting that spiral can be really hard.
On good days, I try to just observe myself interpreting things through an unfortunate lens, acknowledge that doing that is part of who I am, and try to accept that as part of being me but that I am still a worthy person even so.
It's incredible to me how little insight our conscious selves have into what's going on in our subconscious. It seems like almost all the cognitive hard work goes on in the back end systems and the front end we usually think of as being 'us' is just a thin veneer of awareness. Like a user interface between our unconscious selves and the rest of the world.
So when I'm speaking the words just come out. I've got a vague sense of where I'm going and the point I'm about to make, but it's certainly not verbal at that stage. My wife has afantasia, which is not a condition or anything as such, it just means she has no inner monologue and hears no inner voice when e.g. reading a book. Conversely one of my daughters says she is consciously aware of what she is about to say in words several seconds in advance even while speaking rapidly. My mother is an amateur artist and says she has crystal clear visual imagination and photographic memory.
There seems to be a significant variation in how our conscious and cognitive processes work between individuals, including some having varying levels of access to cognitive mechanisms that in others are completely subconscious.
That's just one example of very significant differences between individuals in one family, even in direct lines of descent, so this doesn't seem to be entirely genetic. It leads me to suspect that there may we be similarly very significant variations in how all sorts of other cognitive functions operate between individuals.
I'm sure there's an overall architecture to our brains and neurological machinery. Various brain areas are clearly specialised into particular cognitive functions, but it may well be that, within those areas, how our brains get to implement those functions might have quite a bit of variation.
> It's incredible to me how little insight our conscious selves have into what's going on in our subconscious.
This is true, but it's also a feature, and not a bug. Conscious processing is extremely slow and resource intensive. Our subsconscious processing has millions of years of evolution behind it to generate good enough solutions to many problems much faster and burning fewer calories than doing the mental processing consciously and deliberately.
It's like running an emulator versus running code natively on the CPU. The latter will always beat the former.
It seems like consciousness has a major role in learning and memory formation. It’s very much about attention to what is important. The thing is it’s also attention to the experience of paying attention to things, and I suspect that’s really all conscious awareness is when it comes right down to it.
About 2-3 hours after you posted, a different section of this discussion was started bendbro and Rury;
My personal belief is that SOME cases of your Z are caused by a 'learned helplessness' situational conditioning filter. The world isn't always fair and sometimes even earnest effort that in an ideal world should yield some sort of positive result has none.
Hypothetically the human social creature evolved in small tribes / large families. Possibly in those cases slight negative reactions like that would be corrected by the presence of the family. In the distraction model of recovery possibly by redirection to a more useful effort that would yield positive outcomes for the individual and group.
In modern cities, it is very easy to end up alone, or nearly alone, with very few to rely on. Even if someone has friends in a city they might be real effort to reach, and that is assuming they've got time. If there's that effort involved maybe you don't even hang out with them and drift apart until even chance meetings cost effort and thought.
The most valuable thing I've gotten from the past several years of therapy is a better model for how humans actually process information. The simple model a lot of people have is:
1. Receive some stimulus, input, or experience.
2. Process and understand it.
3. Respond to that emotionally.
What we actually do is more like:
1. Receive some stimulus, input, or experience.
2. This data is way too ambiguous to make sense of on its own. So to turn it into coherent information, interpret it through the lens of a narrative about who we are and how we expect the world to work. This happens automatically and unconsciously.
3. React to that interpretation emotionally.
4. Watch logical rational brain then scramble around trying to come up with a coherent story that explains why we started feeling a certain way. The answer it comes up with may or may not agree with the unsconscious process that happened in step 2.
So much of therapy is "Why does X make me feel Y?" How do I fix X? The answer is almost always that X doesn't make you feel Y. X in the context of belief Z you have about yourself leads do you feeling Y. You fix Z by questioning the often toxic beliefs you hold about yourself. But it can take a lot of work and therapy to even be able to see Z, much less root it out and install a better narrative.