I watched this interesting episode of Impact Theory on YouTube and I’ve heard something which I found to be very interesting (if you watch the episode, you’ll find more interesting things like how we try to find a cause – effect connection in random situations). Moran Cerf said that we have different people inside our brains.
My first thought was “Wait, what?” so I replayed that to make sure I’ve heard correctly. Actually, it’s not about different people, but different aspects of our personality which might come from different people or from different situations (by the way, this reminded me of the animated movie Inside Out (2015) which is very interesting). Apparently there is some sort of argument or battle inside ourselves (which we are not always aware of) from which it is decided what should we do in a certain situation (real or imaginary – we’re good at inventing sh*t). You can see this as a battle between the ID and the Super – ego from Freud’s perspective and Ego is some sort of the outcome of those two (this is a very simplifies schematic).
Those “people” fight and we do as the winner decide. If we’re satisfied with that outcome, that “person” gets more powerful so the next time there is a higher chance to listen to that person so the battle is not that powerful. Is like we have a bunch of scientists inside our heads that propose different theories and one of them gets tested. Some of them are brave enough to propose crazy theories while others propose theories that proved to work in past situations. Some of the scientists are crazy, others are mad, others are excited and so on, but we probably are not aware of them and we only “see” the proposed theory. One of the reasons I say we should see the thoughts we have as theories is because of this. If we do question the propose theory, we might be able to find the other ones as well.
What do you think about this idea? Have you noticed the argument between your “scientists”?
So, I’d guess these “people” work off past experiences and outcomes? It does make sense in the way that the approach we use most becomes more powerful. Whether that be a negative or a positive attitude – the one we use most becomes our more dominant way of thinking. This is why I do believe in the power of the “faking it till you make it” idea – even if I don’t particularly enjoy it being worded like that.
Past experiences or crazy ideas, but it’s more likely “we’d listen” to the ones that are more experienced, even though it’s not always that great.
Hmmm, very interesting indeed!
I’ve definitely become more aware of this idea. Lately, I’ve been wondering if my sister’s bad mood and passive/aggressive FB posts have been directed at me, her husband, or both. I get upset when I think it’s me. I then, try to play the benefit of the doubt game until she tells me that it’s me and than, I try to let it go and direct my attention to the project I’m working on. It’s really hard for me cuz having borderline personality disorder I tend to automatically feel rejected when things like this happen whether it’s true or imagined. I’m trying to learn to regulate my emotions and use distress tolerance skills. It’s very hard since I’m new to this concept.
Yes, it’s very hard. As long as we’re aware of that the bad things might not be oriented to us, we can work on that negative feelings we get in the first place.
Oh yes. I have complex ptsd, and I know that brain struggle. I like the visual this gives me of “scientists” offering theories. I see them sitting at the conference table so to speak. My job is to choose wisely of the theories given.
That’s indeed an interesting image 🙂
No scientists here, just a pocket full of dreams and a open heart, so I don’t spend time trying to put a label oh the thought process… 🙂 “You can’t start the next chapter of your life if you keep re-reading your last chapter.”
Oh, the yesterdays are over my shoulder
So I can’t look back for too long
There’s just too much to see waiting in front of me
And I know that I just can’t go wrong
(Jimmy Buffet)
Awesome!
I’m not sure that different people is a good way to characterize it, but it certainly seems that there are different parts of the brain pushing in different directions when it comes to deciding on actions, such as the limbic system vs the prefrontal cortex.
Even the prefrontal cortex has difficulties in deciding from time to time, especially if we think about the times we have to make an important decision.
There is generally at least one part of my brain that is being more emotional and one being more rational. I don’t know that I think of them as people or personalities, but different takes on how things have happened, or are likely to happen. It’s why I consider myself a “slow processor”. I normally want to take the time to let both sides present considerations before a determination is made.
I wouldn’t say a slow processor because your processor is multitasking 🙂 It would be slow if it would do only one task.
I am SO stealing that!
Well, it actually makes sense. I’ve always felt like I have different aspects of me that tend to take over when the situation calls for it. Sometimes, that “person” will stay for a day or for a week, it depends. You brought up Inside Out which I love! But did you see Identity with John Cusack, talk about survival of the fittest personality! Or Split(hated the movie, loved James McAvoy’s performance!)
I haven’t, but they’re on my list now!
😁
Absolutely. Psychology is fascinating. When multiple theories conflict with one another, we experience cognitive dissonance- an uncomfortable state in which we must make sense of the conflict. This frequently occurs when a new theory challenges a long held belief. Interestingly enough, if you pay someone to do something contrary to their long held belief, they keep their long held belief. If you do not pay someone to do the same act contrary to their long held belief, they will amend their belief system. Psychologists who conducted this study hypothesized that the paid participants resolved the cognitive dissonance with the simple solution of, “I did it for the money.” The unpaid participants, lacking that explanation, had to find another way to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Fascinating stuff!
Basically, we try to create some sense for what we did. I haven’t heard of the study you mentioned, but I hope they took into consideration the biased variables that might occur. If people find some reasoning in what they did (the unpaid participants), that doesn’t mean they changed their belief. They just provide a reason for they own action, which can be internal (“I did it because I found it interesting”) or external (“I did it because my peers did it”). That cognitive dissonance also causes lots of anxiety. It is indeed fascinating stuff. It’s probably a never-ending domain 😀
Very interesting. Especially the ‘Inside Out’ bit. I thought about it when I watched the movie. I think it’s mostly one person in my head, a better version of me. She generally knows what to do, I provide her with alternative perspectives sometimes. It’s the execution part where the fight comes, not exactly a fight and more like kick or encouragement or simple directions which I try to follow. We are mostly friendly and she says ‘ok Control your Sadness, lady!’ when I sulk or ‘Where is that Anger girl when we need her!’ when something atrocious happens and I get spellbound. She’s a fan too 😉
That’s a great approach!