Theory 13 – Reverse Cognition: Thinking and Feeling in Middle Management

Just to mix it up, I am going to give you a sneak preview of this week’s theory at the beginning. Then when you read on you can watch as I desperately try to pull it together.

“I submit for your consideration Theory # 13 in Book of Mark – While it is fine and dandy to let the dominant side of our brains make the day to day decisions, I recommend that we let the weaker side of our brain set the boundaries that our dominant side must adhere to. We must regularly communicate with, and even report to that part of us that isn’t fit to be in the driver seat. It should be our middle management.”

Maybe next week I’ll pull the old cinematic trick of writing out the theory and posting it with each paragraph in reverse order.

-------------------

I have only ever taken one psychology course, and I didn’t love it. I now find it a lot more interesting, but I am a long way from being an expert.

Back in the day when the concept of human psychology was still relatively Jung, we discovered that, when making choices, the brain operates in two distinctive modes: the thinking mode and the feeling mode. Further, we have come to understand that each of us has a preference as to which mode we use when we make decisions. Many of us prefer to make choices using the rational side of our brains, while others like to feel their way through decision-making.

(For psychology majors, note that I am ignoring the ‘sensing’ and ‘intuition’ functions because they are less involved in making decisions, they are more involved in gathering information, and, most importantly, because I know less about them.)

Although both the thinking and feeling sides of decision-making are very important, everyone sticks to the dominant mode in the vast majority of cases. Jung made it clear that we can’t develop all of our decision-making and information-gathering modes equally. When we make choices, we follow internal processes that are completely intuitive - it is so deeply embedded within us that we can’t help but stick to what we know.

Sadly, I believe that this leads to serious errors in judgment that are both predictable and avoidable. If we take the time to understand ourselves and the way that we approach decisions, we can learn why we make the mistakes we do.

If you will indulge me, let’s see how this plays itself out in some shameless generalizations.

The danger of making some choices “by feel”:

A person whose dominant mode is “feeling” rather than “thinking” needs to understand and recognize that life is full of scenarios where our own wiring makes our feelings a danger to us. Crimes of passion, losing your cool, or just failing to fully understand the consequences your choices can all result in choosing “by feel”.

I’ll give you an extreme, but highly scientific example.

Have you had a friend end up in a bad relationship, or even a VERY bad relationship?

It is often easy for us, the impartial observer and friend, to see the disaster coming. We can recognize that the new person that our friend is connecting with might be abusive, too angry, too self destructive, too incapable of making our friend happy.
But why doesn’t our friend see this? Many probably assume that only truly insecure and weak people fall into the situation of being trapped in a bad or abusive relationship. It is also important to remember that people who make decisions by feel have a lot stacked up against them in this situation.

We know that instinct plays a big role in how people choose their mates. When our hypothetical friend finds a new love interest, his/her brain floods his/her system with feelings. Where poetry could never agree on what love is, science has managed to pin down what these feelings are: a healthy dose of phenylethylamine, dopamine and norepinephrine. When mixed together and administered at a “love level” dosage, these chemicals can get you pretty fucked up. They also force us to overlook what might have been shortcomings in our respective mates, or clues of incompatibility – these chemicals give us a one track mind. Our body intentionally undermines our rational thinking by doping us up and making us feel very good. After those chemicals wear off (30 months at the longest), we get hit with a whole bunch of new chemicals, as lust fades to nurturing affection. These represent a less intense high, but another obstacle for the feeling mind just the same.

In order for “feelers” to break the cycle of an abusive relationship, they must put aside what their brain is making them “feel” and go against the way that they have made almost every other decision within their lives.


The danger of making choices “by thinking”:

In spite of the example above, I think that what we feel is extremely important. I make all kinds of decisions just by “going by feel.” People who think too much but don’t take time to “feel” life are especially boring people. They tend to make great long-term choices, but they don’t have a lot of fun, and are often unhappy. Furthermore, because so much of our intelligence comes from subconscious thought rather than fully conscious thought, it is incorrect to assume that thinkers are any smarter than feelers when it comes to making decisions. People going by feel have the benefit of instinct that can be a wonderful advantage (as well as a disadvantage as discussed above). People who use rational thought alone have less access to their own instincts, because they act more on what they understand in their conscious mind rather then the subtle signals of their subconscious mind.

After all, if the goal is to be happy, you need to understand that happiness is a feeling, so people who are more natural thinkers need to reconcile that rational thought is often a difficult tool to use when the goal is accomplishing a sensation that you are going to feel rather than think of. When I look over my life, as a person who has been accused of thinking too much, I have to admit that some of my happiest moments were sitting in a cottage stoned out of my tree thinking that the inflatable dear head on the wall is probably the coolest things ever. That was more about feeling a sensation of happiness than it was about thinking. (At least I think it was.)

Thus, we are faced with a contrast: People who make choices by feel or by thought both have advantages and hurdles. Moreover, we are all wired to have a dominant way of processing information, so it would be foolish of me to suggest that people change this. How do we know we are using the best “mode of decision-making” at any given time, and are we even capable of switching back and forth if we wanted to?

A common theme in the Book of Mark involves using excessive contrast to bring grounding. I can’t practically propose that everyone starts making decisions in a different manner than we have our entire lives, but I can offer a simpler solution, one that I would imagine is a fairly basic principle for psychologists. We need to make a point of touching base with our recessive side – we need to think the “wrong way” (relatively speaking) to make sure that we are actually “right” when we are thinking “the right way”. Our weaker mode of thought may be too useless to be put in charge of the day to day work or making choices, but there is one task that it is perfectly suited for: middle management. As much as I hate to say this, we need to insert a little bureaucracy in our thinking patterns.

For you feelers out there, go ahead and make your decisions by feel. Don’t even feel guilty about it. However, I propose that you should set aside time to reflect through your thinking mind. Rather than looking at individual decisions, look with your weaker mind at the bigger picture. The big picture is actually a lot simpler than day to day life. Little things like “Do I like myself?” or “Am I the type of person I want to be?” are the kind of simple questions that are better suited to our weaker side. Have an honest conversation with yourself about who you are and what your moral boundaries are. When the heat of the moment arrives, and your emotions are pushing in a certain direction, you can follow them blindly as long as you are staying within the boundaries that you promised you would. Actually sit in the dark and let the weak mind set the boundaries, and you can let the strong ‘feeling mind’ run freely within those boundaries.

For you thinkers out there, the same theory applies. As every good psychologist on horrible television sitcoms has explained to me, you need to set aside time to get in touch with those feelings. Little questions like “Am I happy? Am I enjoying life?” will force you to face certain failures in your day to day decisions. If you are an extremely good rational thinker, you may even do a good job of working that into your rational decisions at the ground level. Also, if you have the mental and physical capacity to indulge in chemicals without ruining your life, try to get drunk and/or stoned now and then. I sure do love my sharp contrasts.

And here is where we insert the Theory from the beginning of the post. Stay tuned for some further discussion in the random thoughts and practical applications:

I submit for your consideration Theory # 13 in Book of Mark – While it is fine and dandy to let the dominant side of our brains make the day to day decisions, I recommend that we let the weaker side of our brain set the boundaries of behaviour that our dominant side must adhere to. We must regularly communicate with, and even report to that part of us that isn’t fit to be in the driver seat. It should be our middle management.

Appendix: Some random thoughts and practical applications.

1) Should I “follow my heart?”

Sometimes our dominant side has trouble making a decision. Something holds us back. When asking others for advice, some people like to say “Follow your heart.”

The only thing your heart wants to do is to continue pumping blood throughout your body without undue blockage or contamination.

Think I’m knitpicking? Well I have a good reason. When people say “Follow your heart”, they really mean “do what you FEEL is right”. They romanticize it by tying it to the heart, but we know that it is really your brain that decides what you feel. What this person really is saying is “follow the part of your brain that goes by feel instead of thinking rationally”. That is an important distinction. If you are a chronic thinker, following your heart may be a good idea. If you are someone who is already a “feeler” when you make decisions, you may need to wonder why you are questioning it. You may be better off with someone saying “Follow your brain.”

2) How do you “follow your heart” anyway?

The truth is, it is often tough to know what we want. We get stuck with choices and we try to figure out which choice will make us happier, but it proves difficult. We can’t tell what we want. How do we follow our heart if we don’t know what it is telling us?

This is probably a question best asked to some sort of trained professional (priest, psychologist, cardiovascular surgeon, etc.), but I can offer one of my endless stupid tricks that will work in some situations where you are trying to choose between exactly two choices.

Whenever I can’t decide something, I flip a coin. Before flipping it, I convince myself that I will do whatever the coin says. I promise to follow it. When I flip the coin, I blank my mind and try to pick up on what my initial reaction is. About half the time, I get an initial surge of disappointment. My brain sends a signal that I have made the wrong choice. In such instances, I break my promise to follow the coin and reverse the decision. It actually works – forcing myself down either path gives me a glimpse of which path I might want to choose.

You are probably wondering how anyone would be able to convince himself that they will do what the coin says after having broken this promise numerous times. This is yet another situation where alcohol and drugs are a backseat philosopher’s best friend.