The Forces and Filters of Self-Knowledge | Psychology Today

Why is self-knowledge important? At least some self-knowledge is crucial because self-deception is so easy, as these powerful quotations make clear (all of which are drawn from this useful video).

?Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves for a very long time and very persistently to attain it.? G. I. Gurdjieff

?There is no coming to [self] consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.? C. G. Jung

?Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself, every moment, all day, all your life?You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere?But you never stop yourself in what you are doing because you believe in yourself.? Jeanne de Salzmann

What is self-knowledge and why are we vulnerable to self-deception? Before I answer that, let me start with a little anecdote that might help frame the issues. Several years ago, I happened to be clandestinely watching two of my children, Jon (who was 2) and Sydney (who was 4), play with each other. Well, after some brief period, the playing escalated into more competitive pushing until finally Sydney had enough and pushed Jon down hard, after which he erupted in a sharp cry. I then immediately appeared on the scene and demanded to know what happened. Sydney quickly replied, ?He fell.? I imagine that anyone who spends time around young children can relate similar stories.

Let?s think for a minute about the nature of Sydney?s reply. First, it is obvious that she knew what I was talking about. If she were confused about my frame of reference, she might have said some non sequitur like ?Jon turned on the TV.? Second, Sydney clearly had the mental capacity to connect her actions to cause-effect sequences. If I had arrived at the scene and she had just given Jon a piece of her cookie, she would have said, ?I am sharing with Jon.? So what is obviously notable about Sydney?s explanation is that it so clearly filters out a blatant aspect of the story?her pushing him?which, not coincidentally, where the very elements that would implicate her as being responsible for a negative action. It is worthy of note here that Sydney?s reply came very quickly, faster than the time it would take for her to reason through what she should say.

The Design of the Human Self-Consciousness System

To understand self-knowledge, we need to understand the design of the human self-consciousness system. I would posit that Sydney?s filtered verbalization represents a central evolutionary design feature of the human self-consciousness system. But before I dive into how the self-consciousness system was shaped by evolutionary adaptive forces, it is necessary to review just a bit about consciousness just to be clear about the territory we are covering.

As articulated in more detail here in this blog on mapping human consciousness, there are three broad domains of human consciousness. The first domain is a level of consciousness that we share with other animals and is called experiential consciousness (it also is called sentience). This is made up of the nonverbal sensations, perceptions, urges, and feeling states that guide actions. The second domain is private self-consciousness, and this is where explicit self-knowledge resides. This domain is the internalized narrator that develops meaning making ?theories? about the world, other people, and one?s self. The third domain of consciousness is the public self, which refers to what we explicitly say to other people and the image we attempt to project.

Let?s go back to the situation with Sydney and Jon. Appearing on the scene, I was able to gain access both to information that had happened previously and to information that was inside Sydney?s head. How? Via language. Language was a game changer for Homo sapiens at many different levels. (Note that while other animals have very complicated systems of communication, they do not have an open, symbolic-syntactical system for representing states of affairs). For one thing, language allowed information to be cheaply shared. For another, it allowed for much more complicated cognitive representation and mental manipulation. It also allowed for much greater coordination of activity and, thus, cooperation. In short, language was a great boon for our species.

But it came with a significant adaptive problem. With it, for the first time in evolutionary history, another individual had a rather direct window into one?s thought processes?which, for now, we can call the problem of inquiry. Elaborating a little bit on this point with an example, consider what would happen if a male (call him ?Beta?), was interested in forging a relationship with a particular female, but she was pair bonded with another male (?Alpha?). Imagine further that Beta starts spending time with her, but is then confronted by Alpha with a question such as: ?Why are you spending so much time around her?? If Beta simply translated his thought processes in response to the question, he would say something like: ?I want to separate the two of you and have her as my mate.? Of course, such a statement seems blatantly foolish because the information would obviously be of crucial importance to Alpha, who, upon hearing it, would be able to take defensive action.

Evolutionarily, the problem for Beta is how can he explain his actions without costing him vital social influence and opportunities? To do this effectively, he must reflect on his actions, take into account the interests and knowledge of his audience and develop a reason-giving narrative that provides a plausible explanation of the public evidence without costing him key resources. A response such as, ?She is teaching me how to plant seeds? might be a good justification, in that it could provide an explanation for Beta?s actions in a manner that avoids potentially negative social consequences. Of course, Alpha must then evaluate the coherence and consistency of such an explanation and decide whether or not to accept the justification. In addition, language allows information about another to be transmitted to others who are not directly present?we can call this the problem of gossip. Alpha, for example, can use language to check with others about Beta?s actions when he is not there.

Both of these problems, the problem of inquiry and the problem of gossip, can be framed as adaptive problems of social justification, which are the reasons we give that legitimize our behavior in a manner that important others find believable and acceptable.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201211/the-forces-and-filters-self-knowledge

three stooges the three stooges the bee gees woodward keratosis pilaris rock and roll hall of fame 2012 brandon rios