Monday 24 August 2009

Trust your inner voice [updated]

A reader was asking me recently about introspection.  Just as we use “extrospection” to know the external world, we use introspection to gain information about the “internal” world – to get a handle on our emotions; to learn our responses to music and art; to understand and validate subjects like free will – without introspection we’re blundering blindly.  Explained simply, introspection is simple the process by which we become aware of our own conscious experiences.

Basically, introspection is as evidential as any other form of evidence-gathering – it simply requires more honesty to collate and communicate the evidence we’ve gathered. There’s nothing mystical about introspection.  Psychologist Edith Packer explains in this excerpt [pdf] that

    Introspection is a cognitive, intellectual process directed inward, focusing on and identifying the internal processes of one's consciousness.  Just as extrospection requires a focus on the various aspects of the external world, so introspection involves an awareness of and focus on one’s intellectual and emotional life. The requirements of mental health include both—the objective
knowledge of both external and internal reality. . .
    The process of introspection covers wide and varied areas of man’s inner life. It can include an examination of the conscious mind’s efficiency in thinking, the discovery of subconscious connections in making evaluations, the discovery of intermediate or core evaluations, the identification of defense mechanisms, and the discovery and identification of one’s values of
every kind, from fundamental to trivial.

Introspection is not a wholly internal process. It is inward directed, focussing on our reactions outward. As Ayn Rand explains, it is

a process of apprehending one’s own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated.

Introspection is not a “continuous defensive observation of one's behavior and feelings
(usually of anxiety) in anticipation of real or imagined disapproval.” It is not a neurotically self-conscious internal focus which “amounts to asking ‘How am I doing?’ during  all of one's interactions with other people.”  As Packer explains, introspection instead seeks answers to the questions of "What am I doing?" and "Why am I doing it?"

Getting to know our own emotions is one primary goal of healthy introspection.  Emotions are not causeless, however the failure to identify the nature and causes of our emotions can make them seem so.  Suppose then that we want to understand our emotions, and we’re ready to introspect. How do we go about it?  Edith Packer offers six steps to follow:

1. Identify the type of emotion or emotions which you are experiencing.
2. Identify the universal evaluation underlying each of those emotions.
3. Identify the personal evaluations underlying each of those emotions—the particular form in which you hold the universal evaluation.
4. Judge the correctness of the underlying evaluations, both universal and personal, against the facts.
5. If the evaluations underlying the emotions are incorrect, identify the reasons for making them.
6. Consciously reinforce correct evaluations, in order to correct automated inappropriate thinking methods stemming from your psychological problems.

Emotions are our rewards for living.  Honest introspection does more than just give us evidence for philosophical treatises, it does more than just refute the claims of behaviorists and positivists: by giving us a handle on our emotional life and what causes it, it helps us “tune up” the faculty by which we are rewarded for living well.  As Tom Lahti explains at the Focus Foundry blog, “introspection is the primary psychological tool by which man improves his character, integrates his knowledge of the world around him, and increases his own happiness.”

Why wouldn’t you want to do that well?

UPDATE:  Reader “Bez” recommends what look to be two interesting books along these lines by neurologist Antonio Damasio: Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, and Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain . Anyone know any more about these?

And of course there’s Edith Packer’s ‘Art of Introspection’ and other work, which you can get hold of here.

15 comments:

Berry said...

Peter,

Two books I would recommend on this, both by Antonio Damasio:
"Descartes' error" and "Looking for Spinoza"

David S. said...

Interesting read, I don't outright disagree with any of this, although I think it overstates the relationship between emotions and cognitive abilities. Cognition requires access to memories, emotions don't. So I think from a pragmatic perspective there can be limits to how much introspection can alter your emotional state. You haven't answered my question about how introspection proves the existence of 'free will' however.

Since this has obviously an offshoot of the free will discussion, I have another question. The word, 'will' basically means 'desire', it denotes a driving force. The word 'free' however is a bit more complicated. It means to be unimpeded, or given without expectation, or of course it can be a political term.

When you use the term 'free will', what are you implying your 'will' is free from?

David S. said...

^that should read "cognition requires concious access to memories, emotions don't"

Pat J said...

I'd suggest Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"

Leventhal said...

Cognition requires access to memories, emotions don't

I disagree, emotions also require access to memory. Emotions become positive or negative based on previous experience. At the most basic level, emotions are the interpretations of a physical response (or physical arousal) to external (or in fact internal) stimuli. They become emotions when they are pegged to an event. In some cases the same 'emotion' (or physical arousal) may be interpreted as a different 'emotion' depending on context. An obvious example is fear versus excitement. Physiologically, they are identical, but what we call them depends on the situation.

Certainly physiological arousal is free from memory, but what we then go on to call emotions are not.

Leventhal said...

Ah, I just saw your amendment.

Peter Cresswell said...

Uugh! I wouldn't. I'm not sufficiently sadistic.

Whatever the question, Kant Can't, Kant Couldn't, Kant Didn't, and Kant Really Wasn't. :-)

David S. said...

Those articles are quite amusing, almost (almost) everytime you quoted Kant I found myself going "Well yes, that's obvious"....

It doesn't really surprise me that driving paradigm of the post-modernist philosophers is lost on most people. Quite frankly, they sound contradictory, reality 'is' but it 'isn't' etc etc...

I think the best way to approach the percieved gap between Kant and Rand (the gap is much smaller than you probably realise) is to examine one of Rand's axioms, A is A.

A, in 'reality', is A, surprisingly enough. 'Objects' are not figments of our imagination, they are real, separate from our conciousness.

But there is another aspect to this axiom, A is actually just a letter, a value that we've assigned to a compartmentalised representation of reality. Language is compartmentalised, but reality is not, at least not as compartmentalised as our limited abilities to percieve and comprehend reality are. Even mathematics itself is a just system of objective representation for the most part. I've heard from people who are educated in quantum physics say that on a quantum level, whole numbers are theoretically possible, but macroscopically they don't really exist. Take pi for example, a very simple geometric constant, yet it's entirely possible it has an infinite number of decimal places, making any objective use of this constant just an educated guess. At least until we invent an analog way of processing reality.

One big problem with Rand, and objectvism in general, it takes reality as being digital, but it isn't, it's analog. Our compartmentalised view of reality is a kind of 'illusion', a 'Useful fiction' as Kant would say. I prefer 'Educated guess' myself.

Reason and science allow us to refine our educated guesses, but the only objective, absolute truth that exists is the knowledge of our own existence, cogito ergo sum.

"I am" is about the only self evident statement you can make. I like, "I drink, therefore I am" personally, a statement that is just as valid as it's more well known counterpart.

The contribution post-modernist philosophy has made shouldn't be overlooked. Science has benefitted greatly from this paradigm shift. Fields like relativity and quantum mechanics would be extremely difficult to comprehend without it.

Pat J said...

Von Mises liked Kant.
http://mises.org/story/1681

Peter Cresswell said...

Not even the great Von Mises was perfect.

Peter Cresswell said...

"One big problem with Rand, and Objectvism in general, it takes reality as being digital, but it isn't, it's analog..."

WTF!?

It takes reality as it is. Galt knows what you're doing here?

Elijah Lineberry said...

With trembling fingers on the keyboard...

Dare I ask what the difference between analog and digital is?

It is such a shame at how the internet is being used by so many people to criticise Ayn Rand.

Greig McGill said...

No, he makes some sense. Think in terms of time... or numbers in general. Take 1. Divide it by 2. Do that again. And again. On to infinity. Now put that in the context of time. When is it exactly midnight? Do we have the level of accuracy of measurement to say that? Given any point in space/time, there's always smaller points that make it up. Right down to the quantum level, where you can't even say what a point it, only the probability that a point is present at another point in time.

It does the head in, but it's not totally abstract. There are real, physical things based on quantum theory. Amazing stuff, but it will hurt your brain.

Greig McGill said...

No, he makes some sense. Think in terms of time... or numbers in general. Take 1. Divide it by 2. Do that again. And again. On to infinity. Now put that in the context of time. When is it exactly midnight? Do we have the level of accuracy of measurement to say that? Given any point in space/time, there's always smaller points that make it up. Right down to the quantum level, where you can't even say what a point it, only the probability that a point is present at another point in time.

It does the head in, but it's not totally abstract. There are real, physical things based on quantum theory. Amazing stuff, but it will hurt your brain.

David S. said...

analog - "of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable"

digital - "of, pertaining to, or using data in the form of numerical digits"

It's basically the difference between whole and real numbers.

'whole' numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc, 'real' numbers are all of those, and the infinite number of variations between these 'whole' numbers.

Essentially what this means, is that not only is our language only representitive of reality, but our scientific understanding has an unknown (yet constantly refined) margin for error.

We can't take "reality for what it is" because (among other things) reality is infinitely complex. We compartmentalise it in order to understand it.